Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Afghanistan

Laura Moffatt: What role the armed forces are playing in providing humanitarian relief in southern Afghanistan.

Des Browne: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family, friends and comrades of Lance Corporal James Bateman and Private Jeff Doherty of 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who were killed in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on Thursday 12 June. They were young men of remarkable courage and professionalism, and we owe them an enormous debt.
	The primary focus of the international security assistance force—ISAF—is to assist the Government of Afghanistan in the maintenance and extension of security. Practical support for reconstruction and development efforts is one of ISAF's key supporting tasks.

Laura Moffatt: I am grateful for the opportunity to ask that question, and I echo my right hon. Friend's thoughts on those who continue to give their lives to secure peace and security in Afghanistan—I send them my eternal thanks. Does he agree that the best way for the people of Afghanistan to have confidence in the work that is taking place there is to forge ahead with the health and education programmes that are crucial to that work? Education and health are a basic right, and people in Afghanistan will come to understand that when those programmes are rolled out throughout the country.

Des Browne: From her own professional experience in health, my hon. Friend knows how important health care is, particularly to women. I am pleased to say that, as a result of ISAF's effect in Afghanistan, 80 per cent. of people now have access to basic health care—less than 10 per cent. did so before. Education offers a long-term sustainable future for Afghanistan, and there are now 6 million children in education, one third of whom are girls. We should remember that the Taliban refuse to educate girls, and they still kill those teachers who educate girls, and try to destroy the schools.

Tobias Ellwood: From a parliamentary reply from the Department for International Development, I notice that there is just one single non-governmental organisation operating in Helmand province. Seven years after the invasion, it is astonishing to discover that we cannot invest more and encourage NGOs to do their work. If that is the case, why do the Royal Engineers not have one single Trojan or Terrier vehicle, which would mean that they, instead of DFID, could help the reconstruction and development work? It appears that we have taken over responsibility for the provisional reconstruction team, but we are not doing enough about it.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect his informed observations about Afghanistan—he takes a lot of time and trouble to inform himself. I am sure that he will accept that, from my recent visit to Afghanistan, I have seen significant improvements in reconstruction. When I was in Lashkar Gah a couple of weeks ago, 30 projects were under way across that city. I may have more to say later in some detail about what is happening across Afghanistan, but he can be assured, in terms of reconstruction and development, that we, with our allies, are investing $12 million a week in Helmand province alone.

Harry Cohen: How does bombing, including of civilians, by the US military; hostility to Iran, including incursions; and threats to invade Pakistan's sovereignty, help the humanitarian effort in southern Afghanistan?

Des Browne: With respect, my hon. Friend always manages to make a partial analysis of what is going on in a country of great complexity. He forgets to remind the House that while civilian deaths caused by ISAF forces are accidental, deeply regretted and always investigated, they are part of the Taliban's plan. Indeed, they intend to do that, and that is the substantial difference between us. As for his other two observations, I know from my work with Bob Gates, who is the US Secretary for Defence, and from the American Government, that they are doing a significant amount to get the Governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan to work across their common border to deal with insurgent and other terrorist activity that blight both countries, and cause significant difficulties for them. A lot of positive work is under way: I just wish that my hon. Friend would occasionally refer to that as well.

Mark Lancaster: I was in Lashkar Gah the week before the Secretary of State and with reference to his earlier answer he did not tell the House that there are fewer schools and health clinics open in Helmand province this year than last year. One of the principal concerns that I heard from my colleagues in the Royal Engineers is that they are frustrated that, while they have been asked to undertake reconstruction and development work—and progress has been made by the stabilisation unit—the time that it takes to obtain the money for the project is getting longer. What can we do to help that time line?

Des Browne: I do not recognise the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has shared with the House, and they certainly do not correspond with the briefing that I was given.

Mark Lancaster: It is true.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman says that it is true, but I do not recognise those statistics. For example, during the week that I was in Helmand province, the hospital in Garmsir opened for the first time in two years, because of the work achieved by Scots soldiers and Americans working together in that part of the province.
	The brigadier in charge of our troops in Helmand province took me through a list of construction projects that were going on and told me a very interesting anecdote about his presence at the opening of a secondary school. It opened for the first time ever, because, after having been built, it had been closed by the Taliban.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the investment of funds not only in quick-impact projects but in long-term development projects. I remind him of what I told the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood): we are currently investing $12 million a week through projects in Helmand province, which is $600 million a year. I think that that is quite a significant amount of money. The ability to invest there stretches the capacity and capability not only of the Afghans, but of our own forces.

Kevan Jones: May I associate myself with those whose thoughts are with the Paras who died last week? Having visited Afghanistan on a number of occasions, including southern Afghanistan, I have always found morale among our armed forces personnel to be very high, and that they are very proud of what they are achieving in southern Afghanistan. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that we need to keep up a constant battle to ensure that their good work and the sacrifices that they make are kept at the forefront not only of the news agenda, but of the minds of the British public?

Des Browne: In my conversations with our troops on the ground in Helmand province, Kandahar and, indeed, Kabul, very many of them have said to me that their deepest frustration is with the failure of people back in this country to appreciate exactly what progress is being made—the concentration always on the negative and the lack of understanding about how difficult an environment it is. I remind the House that Afghanistan has gone through the best part of four decades of violence and lost 2 million of its own people, and two generations in respect of education. In many parts of the country, only between 17 and 22 per cent. of the indigenous population can read and write. There needs to be some strategic patience with what we are trying to do. Nothing will happen year to year on a metric that meets the demands of some unreasonable commentators on what is happening in Afghanistan.

Willie Rennie: Is the Secretary of State aware of a report, which was published by Oxfam earlier this year, that found that the provincial reconstruction teams had extended beyond the remit that was originally intended at the expense of delivery by the local Afghan institutions? Does the Secretary of State believe that that is true? If so, how does he think that we can build up the capacity of the Afghan institutions so that they can deliver much more of their own aid, development and reconstruction?

Des Browne: I read many reports written by people about Afghanistan. The reports that I place greatest store by are those from people who are on the ground in Afghanistan, living and working in that environment. There is, however, an issue about provincial reconstruction teams. At present, the second in command of ISAF, who is a very experienced British general, is, at the request of the previous commander of ISAF, undertaking work on provincial reconstruction teams. On the question whether it is time in certain parts of Afghanistan to move from that sort of reconstruction support to longer term development, I think that the general will almost certainly conclude that in some circumstances provincial reconstruction can exist for too long. At present, however, that is hardly likely to apply to the south of Afghanistan, where most of the most difficult work is being done. Reconstruction is at the heart of what we need to do there.

Service Pay and Conditions

David Evennett: What plans he has to improve pay and conditions for members of the armed forces.

Derek Twigg: A number of measures have been implemented to improve armed forces pay and conditions, including a 2.6 per cent. pay rise, along with a 1 per cent. increase in the X factor component of basic pay from 1 April this year. The operational allowance, introduced in October 2006, now stands at £2,380 for a six-month deployment. Recent enhancements to the wider remuneration package include the council tax relief scheme announced in September 2007, increased separation allowances and financial retention initiatives.

David Evennett: I note the Minister's response, but what relationship does he believe exists in our armed forces between pay and conditions on the one hand, and recruitment and retention on the other?

Derek Twigg: A variety of factors affect recruitment and retention. Currently, the good thing is that recruitment is up, and retention, certainly in terms of outflow, is broadly similar to what it has been in recent years. We always face challenges and we always look at various initiatives to deal with them. For instance, we obviously take advice from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and we have implemented its recommendations, but we continue to look at what more we can do to improve the pay and conditions of our armed forces.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is very important that we get pay and conditions right because that helps with retention. Can he also ensure that we help forces personnel to get on to the property ladder by helping them with deposits and in other ways so that they can have their own properties for the sake of their long-term interests?

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very keen to help our armed forces personnel to get the opportunity to acquire property and to buy equity in property, and we are considering a number of ways in which we can do that. As a result of the 2008 pay review, my right hon. Friend announced money for that purpose this year and for future years. At this stage we are working on the relevant plans; of course, when we have something further to say we will do so.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Peter Viggers.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to colleagues.
	Is the Minister aware that one aspect of conditions causing concern to commanders is the lack of rehabilitation facilities for men and women who have been injured physically or mentally? Is he aware that the Royal hospital, Haslar, is ideally suited to provide such rehabilitation facilities, and will he work with charities and others who are striving to develop those facilities?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman, who is a great defender of Haslar hospital, has done a lot of work over the years on the issue, and I recognise that he feels very strongly about it. However, I do not recognise his viewpoint as regards rehabilitation. Only a few weeks ago, we announced a £24 million investment in Headley Court, which is our main rehabilitation centre. I think that everyone accepts that it is doing remarkable work in rehabilitating and helping our injured service personnel. In many cases that care now means that they can stay in the service and not necessarily leave. We also have a regional group of rehabilitation centres providing world-class treatment and support. We are continuing to invest in rehabilitation for our armed forces personnel to ensure that they get the best possible care and treatment.

John Reid: Would my hon. Friend accept my condolences, along with those of others, not only for those who have recently so tragically died in Afghanistan but for all those who have fallen in the service of this country, and will he recognise the courage that they have shown in their activities? Does he accept that the role of a member of our armed forces is unique? Unlike any other public sector servant, our servicemen and women promise, by contract, to serve even until death. The public therefore need to be reassured that the remuneration that we are giving to those young men and women is adequate to the sacrifice that they are prepared to make. Some misleading comments have been made over the past month or two. Is he in a position to tell us about the value of packages available to soldiers serving, say, in Afghanistan so that we can cut through some of those stories and the public can be told what is the very minimum that is paid to a young soldier in Afghanistan?

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the remuneration of our armed forces personnel. Of course, we set a high store by that. That is why we have accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendations in full—I must stress that to the House. In the case of a newly trained private who is going to Afghanistan, if we take into account certain benefits that they might receive, such as the operational allowance and the separation allowance, and the excellent contribution made by the very good pension scheme, the package can amount to about £25,000. It will depend on which pay scale they are on and will increase accordingly, but that is roughly what one of our most junior privates would get on coming out of training. Let me add that last year we recognised that there was an issue with pay for the most junior ranks and increased their pay by the best pay award in the public sector—over 9 per cent.

James Arbuthnot: Yes, but it was not funded, was it?
	On Saturday morning, I attended the latest welcome home parade for the crews of the Chinooks that are coming back from Afghanistan. Those personnel are over there on a regular, rolling basis. The people of Odiham showed a huge degree of appreciation for the wonderful work of those men and women. I was not able to speak to them all because they were lining the streets three deep to welcome home those members of the armed forces, and others, but those to whom I did speak agreed unanimously with the remarks of the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, who says that we need to have a debate about the priority that we give to our armed forces. The work that those people are doing is second to none. Does the Minister agree?

Derek Twigg: Our armed forces are absolutely outstanding—I think that they are the best in the world. Like my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces, I have visited our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seen what they do, and they undertake quite an amazing job. It is important when looking at pay and conditions that we take a strong view about how we pay and remunerate our armed forces, which is why the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is independent. It goes all around the world, talking to armed forces personnel and their families. I was in Cyprus just a few weeks ago after its representatives visited to talk to families there about remuneration and the conditions of service package. We have implemented those recommendations in full.

Angus Robertson: Is it not a source of concern to the Minister when senior military personnel say:
	"A friend of mine told me that a survey done in his battalion in the past couple of weeks found that 58 per cent. of them were unhappy with their pay—that gives an idea of the levels of frustration amongst ordinary soldiers."
	Does that not concern the Minister?

Derek Twigg: I do not think that anyone is in the position to say, "If asked if they would like more pay, most people would say no." I understand the concerns, but having spoken to service personnel over the past two years about pay awards, the feedback I have got has been positive, particularly from chiefs of staff. The chiefs' aspirations are the same as those of Ministers—to ensure that we get the best possible pay awards for our armed forces personnel. I stress to the House that we accepted in full the recommendations of the independent pay review board.
	Of course, the question is much wider than one of pay, which is why we are spending £8.4 billion over the next 10 years to improve a lot of service family accommodation. We are trying to put right decades of neglect. We also have world-class medical services for our injured service personnel, whether in Selly Oak, in the field hospitals in Iraq or Afghanistan or back at the rehabilitation centres. We are ensuring that our armed forces personnel are given a range of support.

Julian Lewis: It was a very serious matter for the Chief of the General Staff to express his continuing concern at the level of pay for our front-line forces. Is he mistaken in his view; otherwise, why is the Minister so complacent about the level of pay?

Derek Twigg: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not complacent about the level of pay. I have clearly stressed that we have an independent review body, and we accepted its recommendations in full. Additionally, we introduced an operational allowance, the separation allowance has been increased, we have introduced a council tax rebate and we are looking at what else we can do. The pay review body talks to armed forces personnel and their families around the world to get their view of conditions. The Chief of the General Staff and the other chiefs want to see further improvements and so does this ministerial team. I know for a fact that when I spoke to the Chief of the General Staff, he was pleased about the increase given this year.

Annington Homes

Bob Russell: What estimate he has made of the rent to be paid to Annington Homes for service personnel accommodation in 2008-09.

Derek Twigg: Rent to be paid in the financial year 2008-09 is £150 million. That represents 42 per cent. of the agreed market rental price for the properties listed from Annington Homes.

Bob Russell: I pay tribute to the five soldiers from the Colchester garrison who lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last week, and I extend condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those five brave young men. The town mourns, but there is immense pride in the knowledge that the Army is doing an excellent job. They did not die in vain.
	As for Annington Homes, will the Minister confirm that over the past 12 years, the Government have paid more rent to Annington Homes than the Tory Government received during the privatisation in 1996? If that money could be invested in upgrading the homes of Army families, instead of lining the pockets of Annington, perhaps retention would be better than it is.

Derek Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount paid for the sale was around £1.6 billion, and I have written to him with the details of the rent that is being paid. The key thing is that most people now accept that that deal, which was done by the previous Government, was not in the interests of armed forces personnel or their families, and we have had to deal with a legacy of decades of underinvestment. After 18 years in power, the Opposition could not solve that problem. We are spending a significant amount of money on housing—more than £8 billion in the next 10 years—and we are making inroads and improving a large amount of family accommodation and single-living accommodation. There is more to do. We are not complacent about the matter, and we will continue to press for improvements.

Linda Gilroy: Not only does that deal not represent good value for money, as my hon. Friend confirmed, but Annington Homes must be making a handsome profit out of the arrangement. People are always looking to the Government for such things, but it is right to look to industries that make handsome profits out of the defence market. What discussions has the Under-Secretary had with Annington Homes to ask what it can do to put money back into the armed services?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that she takes a great interest in the matter. There is a contract, which was signed under the previous Government, to pay a set amount of money to Annington Homes under a deal that most people now recognise as pretty disastrous for accommodation for armed forces personnel. We have met representatives of Annington Homes to discuss what more we can to do to improve the housing position of our armed forces personnel. They are willing to discuss things with us—we are considering several ideas with them at the moment. When we reach a conclusion, I will be happy to report further on the matter.

Robert Key: But does the Under-Secretary agree that what matters to our armed forces and their families is the quality of the management of those homes? The Defence Committee found lamentable shortcomings in everyday management—taps working, loos flushing—issues that matter so much. In the new supergarrisons, will there be a new housing management system, which is an improvement on the current system? Will polyclinics be considered with the Defence Medical Services, as is happening in Tidworth in Wiltshire?

Derek Twigg: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the matters that we are considering. The response, repair and maintenance service in England and Wales now shows sustained performance levels, with more than 96 per cent. of service family accommodation meeting the move-in standard. More than 99 per cent. of emergency calls are dealt with in 24 hours, and customer satisfaction with the response, repair and maintenance service is consistently above 90 per cent. However, I accept that more needs to be done. We must ensure that we stop the problems occurring in future and that services continue to improve. We will obviously examine a variety of ways in which to do that, but I stress that we are considering a relatively new contract. There were many teething problems when it came into being, but significant improvements have been made. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue to monitor the position and put a great deal of effort and work into ensuring that we get the further improvements.

Forward Equipment Programme

Crispin Blunt: What assessment he has made of the consistency of the forward equipment programme with the Department's expenditure plans.

Bob Ainsworth: The Department reconciles the equipment programme and the available resources through its regular planning round process, which enables us to adjust priorities, not least in response to the experience of operations. To inform the 2009 planning round, we are undertaking a short examination of the equipment programme to look at our planning assumptions in the next 10 years. That aims to bear down on costs and shift the balance of defence procurement to support operations.

Crispin Blunt: But the truth is that that short examination confirms what everyone knows: the forward equipment programme is inconsistent with the state of the defence budget. Will the Minister confirm that the examination is therefore likely to conclude that salami-slicing will no longer be enough and that a major amputation of an entire programme is probably required?

Bob Ainsworth: We need to try to ensure that we have got the focus on our current operations right and that it is sufficient. We need to ensure that we do more for our people, if we can. To do so, we need to examine the cost issues in the equipment programme to ascertain whether we can bear down on them. A review is necessary, sensible and exactly what we are doing.

Ian Davidson: Will the Minister assure me that any such review will not delay signing the contract for my aircraft carriers? Will he further confirm that, if the future of the Scottish naval shipyards is to be assured, it is essential that they maintain access to the United Kingdom market—no Union, no shipyards?

Bob Ainsworth: The commitment to the carrier—not my hon. Friend's carrier, but the carrier—

Ian Davidson: Carriers.

Bob Ainsworth: The commitment to the carrier programme is clear, and that will not be part of the review that we are undertaking.

Bernard Jenkin: Is it not clear that a review of the major equipment programme is just another opportunity for the Government to push decisions "to the right", as the Ministry of Defence jargon goes, in order to delay expenditure for as long as possible, in the hope that the Government can get through a general election before they have to cancel anything? Is it not time for the Government to accept that they will not be able to deliver the capabilities that they originally promised in the strategic defence review under the current defence budget?

Bob Ainsworth: I saw the hon. Gentleman talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who is sitting in front of him, so it is surprising that he should stand up and say exactly the opposite. His hon. Friend said that the review will expose certain things; he says that it is a way of delaying them. The review is a short review. If the hon. Gentleman had paid any attention to what I said, he would know that the review is there to inform our decisions in the 2009 spending round.

David Crausby: Can my right hon. Friend give us some detail on the essential Airbus A400M programme? How many aircraft do we intend to procure and what is his best estimate of its in-flight date?

Bob Ainsworth: We need to consider our equipment programme, with the exceptions of decisions that have already been taken, through the review, although I cannot pre-empt those decisions. We shall aim for the minimum of delay in decision making. The review will not take that long, but it needs to be conducted, and we need to look further on than we were able to during the 2008 spending round.

Nigel Evans: In looking at the forward equipment programme, perhaps the Minister can look at the past equipment programme, too. We all want to see value for money, but does he really think that it is value for money for this country to have bought eight Chinooks that are now lying idle in a hangar? [Hon. Members: "You bought them."] Having said that— [ Interruption. ] I know exactly what the Minister is saying, but can he give the House an assurance that he will look at all the contracts on which we are now expending money, to ensure that there is no waste whatever in the equipment that our armed forces need?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman knows that those eight Chinooks were ordered by the previous Conservative Government. That procurement was found to be completely within the terms of the procurement procedures. We could not go back to Boeing, because it had done what it had been asked to do, but those Chinooks were not compatible with our safety requirements. That was a pretty disastrous situation. We have decided to make those Chinooks fit for purpose, so that we can get them into theatre as quickly as possible. It was a pretty complicated mess in which we found ourselves in the first place, and yes, it has taken some sorting out.

David Taylor: To have the most accurate correlation possible between a complex forward equipment programme and the associated budgets provided, the MOD needs the highest order of financial advice available at its top levels. In the light of the two National Audit Office reports—one relating to the Chinook helicopter disaster, the other to the flog-off of QinetiQ, where senior management enriched themselves by ensuring that the price was well below the market value—what quality of financial advice are Ministers receiving in this benighted Department?

Bob Ainsworth: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. With the benefit of hindsight, one can see the huge success that QinetiQ has been, but that was not guaranteed at the time. However, the Government made nearly £1 billion—an 800 per cent. profit—on their shares in QinetiQ.

Afghanistan

David Kidney: What progress has been made in providing protected patrol vehicles for armed forces personnel operating in southern Afghanistan.

Bob Ainsworth: We have procured a substantial number of protected mobility vehicles over the last 12 months and invested heavily in further improvements to their physical protection as threats have emerged. We have delivered Mastiff and Vector protected mobility vehicles to Afghanistan and they are on the streets saving lives now. We are procuring a total of more than 450 of these vehicles, which is clearly a significant investment. In addition, the Prime Minister has recently announced the procurement of 150 additional protected vehicles for operational use, which will be known as Ridgeback.

David Kidney: A number of constituents have expressed to me in the strongest possible words their deep concern about the number of our armed forces personnel who have died as a result of explosive devices at the roadside, and ask me whether that might be due to a lack of sufficient protective vehicles. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House today that when commanders take decisions in matching operations and vehicles, their choice of vehicle is not compromised by an absence of sufficient protected vehicles?

Bob Ainsworth: A number of commanders have been able to say to us quite clearly that over the last few years the equipment provided to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has fundamentally improved. The House needs to ensure that we do not try to second-guess decisions that are quite rightly taken by commanders about which vehicle is appropriate for use on a particular operation. We need a range of vehicles; we cannot do everything from a Mastiff. Our responsibility is clearly to ensure that there are sufficient of all the different kinds of vehicle available to commanders so that they have a free choice to pick the right vehicle for the right job as they see it at the time. That is what we are seeking to do and I hope my hon. Friend would appreciate that we have done so with a substantial degree of success over the last couple of years.

Ann Winterton: I commend the Secretary of State for ordering the Ridgeback vehicles—the four-wheeled version of the Mastiffs, which have an outstanding track record in Afghanistan and are very popular with the troops. Does not the Minister accept, however, that with the arrival of the future rapid effect utility vehicles, the balance between vehicles designed for blast deflection rather than blast absorption will be tipped too much towards the latter type?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, of course we have to ensure that we have the right balance in the range of vehicles available. The hon. Lady should not be under any illusion, however, that in the development process of FRES——future rapid effect system—adequate mine protection will not need to be proven and tested to destruction as appropriate. Our problem is that we are not able to expose those tests in the same way as civilian organisations because that would put our troops at risk. But we need a vehicle with a high degree of mobility, which will of course need to be set off against the essential requirement for mine protection and blast deflection to be built into the vehicle's design.

Patrick Cormack: But does not the Minister share my sense of concern and, indeed, embarrassment that those brave soldiers who willingly and enthusiastically drive those vehicles in their protective duties are paid so much less than those drivers of trucks who are currently holding the nation to ransom?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the earlier question about soldiers' pay and he is now trying to bring the matter into this one. It was a good try.

Overstretch

John Barrett: What recent assessment he has made of the extent of overstretch in the armed forces.

Bob Ainsworth: The armed forces are stretched, but the chiefs of staff advise me that the current situation is manageable. Some of our people are working harder than is the ideal. We are, however, taking steps to alleviate the pressures on individuals through a number of financial and non-financial measures aimed at improving retention and balancing manpower in areas of current risk.

John Barrett: This weekend, President Bush stressed the importance of listening to our generals when making decisions about troop deployment. Has the Minister listened to General Sir Richard Dannatt's warning that overstretch has left us with "almost no capability" to deal with the unexpected? Does the Minister agree with the general?

Bob Ainsworth: I just said that we talked to the chiefs of staff, and they have assured us that, although there is stretch in the armed forces, the situation is manageable. The Chief of the General Staff is one of those chiefs. He is part of those discussions. Of course he has been consulted; of course he continues to be consulted. The opinion that I have just given is the opinion that is expressed by the Chief of the General Staff as well as the other chiefs.

Andrew Murrison: Our armed forces would be stretched beyond breaking point had it not been for the dedicated and courageous service of non-UK nationals. A decade ago, there were just 600 non-UK non-Nepalese soldiers in the British Army. Today, there are around 7,000 and rising. Will the Minister be sorting out his manning difficulties by making a career in the Army more attractive to young people or will he continue to buck the UK labour market in favour of overseas recruitment?

Bob Ainsworth: Our recruitment in the last couple of years has been pretty buoyant. We are able to get people into the armed forces. Recruitment figures achieved in 2007-08 were nearly 1,500 higher than in the previous year, but we know that retention is a problem, which is why we have brought in the various allowances—most recently, the commitment bonus of £15,000. It is not the intention to depend on overseas recruits. It is the intention to be able to recruit within the UK. Let us make it clear: the package available to a young infantryman is worth, by any estimate, £25,000, which is more than that for a parking attendant.

Andrew Miller: Following on from that, about 10 days ago I was privileged to be on HMS Bulwark, where morale was exceptionally high, and I want to use this opportunity to send my congratulations on that to Captain Jeremy Blunden and the ship's company. We came across a number of Commonwealth citizens—some on secondment, some direct recruits. What assessment has the Department made of the extra training that we can give to increase the strength of the Royal Navy among our allies and thus help the campaigns that we have to face?

Bob Ainsworth: The Royal Navy co-operates with all our allies in trying to assist whenever it can. Anyone who goes down to Flag Officer Sea Training at Plymouth will invariably see other navies participating alongside our own and trying not only to develop their interoperability, but to learn any lessons that they can from us, as we should learn any lessons we can from other nations.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not accept that retention is a serious problem and that many experienced, trained soldiers are leaving the forces early, for whatever reason? That was highlighted to me recently when my wife and I attended beating the retreat on Horse Guards as guests of the Army Benevolent Fund. Those soldiers said to us both that retention is very difficult. Can we not do more to try to retain those whom we have trained at great expense and who are of huge value to our armed services?

Bob Ainsworth: Retention is a huge issue—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—but pay in itself is not the only answer to it. There are many complexities to the retention issue. We lose an awful lot of people during training and the Army is actively considering whether it can lose fewer during that process—without lowering standards, but by looking at its procedures.
	There is also the issue of the soldiering that our people do today. They willingly face complex and dangerous circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq, and if one talks to them in theatre, they say that they enjoy what they do. But they get their soldiering experience much quicker, over a shorter time scale, than previous generations. Therefore, retention will remain a difficult, complex issue. We must continue to strive to do everything that we can to meet that challenge. The hon. Gentleman is right: we cannot afford to lose the skills in which we have invested so much.

NATO Transformation Programme

Rosie Cooper: What steps he is taking to promote NATO's transformation programme.

Des Browne: NATO remains the bedrock of our security and defence policy. We are determined to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency in current and future operations, and in delivering the capabilities that we need. At last week's NATO Defence Ministers' meeting, we took stock of progress, including on British initiatives to make more helicopters and other key capabilities available for operations. I have agreed to host a special NATO Defence Ministers' meeting on transformation in September in London. Our aim is that that will allow Ministers to give political direction to help to resolve such transformation issues.

Rosie Cooper: Will the Secretary of State tell us what a transformed NATO might look like?

Des Browne: It is accepted that NATO has found it difficult to transform itself from the most effective political-military organisation that the world has ever known, and one which was configured for a cold war situation, into one that can respond to the modern challenges. A common view is that a transformed NATO will have the capabilities that it needs to succeed in operations of the sort to which we currently deploy NATO troops, such as in Afghanistan or Kosovo; will use its resources efficiently to support our future needs; will have all its members sharing the burdens and risk of operations; will work better with organisations such as the European Union, UN and African Union; and will have a slimmed-down command structure, suitable for modern operations.

Topical Questions

Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Des Browne: As Secretary of State for Defence, my departmental responsibilities are to make and execute defence policy; to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they need to achieve success in their military tasks at home and abroad; and to ensure that they are ready to respond to the tasks that might arise in future.

Graham Allen: The Secretary of State and his team will know of the fantastic work done by Skill Force's retired armed services trainers in putting something back into the community. In the Haddon Park and William Sharp schools in my constituency, they are helping some of the most difficult-to-reach young people. Will he commend the success of Skill Force and its trainers, and consider whether the Ministry of Defence or any one of the armed services might sponsor an academy as universities and private businesses do? Will he consider taking the Skill Force example further and have the MOD or one of the services sponsor an academy in a tough area?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right to recognise that when the armed services have a relationship with schools such as that of Skill Force, it is of mutual benefit, with the young people and children in those schools benefiting most. I have not seen Skill Force operate in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I have seen it operate in schools in Scotland to significant effect. Until he raised the issue of academy sponsorship, I had not thought of extending the relationship in such a way, and we have no plans to do so. But if he wants to put a proposal to me, I will certainly discuss it with the chiefs of staff and the appropriate Secretary of State.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State tell us what General Sir Richard Dannatt's career prospects are?

Des Browne: General Sir Richard Dannatt is an extremely successful and well-regarded soldier who has risen to the top of the Army. There is a process that took him there and respected all his skills and talents, and there is a process that will determine his future. No doubt I shall receive advice in due course from those who are equipped to give it to me, and I shall follow that process to the letter.

Phil Wilson: What has been the Government's role in securing international agreement on the banning of cluster munitions?

Des Browne: In November 2006, the Government decided to take the lead internationally in addressing the humanitarian concerns posed by certain types of cluster munitions. Since that date the United Kingdom has been actively engaged with the convention on conventional weapons, and in February 2007 it decided to join the Oslo process to drive the issue forward and secure the best possible humanitarian result. In March 2007, we withdrew two types of cluster munitions from service because we took the view that they would inflict unacceptable harm. We were the first country to do that after the Oslo conference, and we are one of the 46 nations to have supported the Oslo process from the outset. The Government are delighted with the outcome of the Dublin conference, where we gave a very strong lead. I am proud of what we have achieved, and I know that it is supported throughout the House and in the other place.

Nick Harvey: Can the Secretary of State cast any light on the BBC reports of a week or so ago that by the end of the year the Government would be in a position to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq? We have heard President Bush warn against it, but yesterday the Foreign Secretary said in a BBC interview:
	"We have to complete what we have started and the priority... was the training of the 14th Division around Basra."
	What is the Government's estimate of the time scale for completion of that work? Are there any other specific projects that we "have to complete" before we have concluded our task? Will we be in a position to tell a new United States President next January that the sustainability of our long-term commitment in Afghanistan necessitates a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman—understandably—raises this issue regularly at Question Time and during debates, and I think that I consistently give him the same answer: that decisions about the level of our forces in Iraq will depend on military advice, which in turn will reflect the conditions. As he knows, during my time as Secretary of State the number of our troops in Iraq has roughly halved, which reflects the changing conditions.
	We have set ourselves a number of tasks. At the end of the day, we will make a decision on whether the Iraqi security forces are sufficiently trained to be able to hold and sustain the security that we, along with other allies, have helped them to create. The hon. Gentleman and the House can rest assured that when that day comes, I or another member of the Government will come here and tell the House, not the BBC.

Laura Moffatt: I am very proud that 103 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, a Territorial Army unit, has headquarters in Crawley. A major opportunity has been provided by a large planning application for redevelopment of the town centre. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a positive attitude will be taken to any idea of moving the TA, so that it can continue its fantastic work?

Bob Ainsworth: I shall talk to my hon. Friend about the details of her question, and ensure that we do the maximum that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Liam Fox: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), both of whom are hugely respected in the House, and both of whom richly deserve the honour that was bestowed on them at the weekend.
	On the subject of respect, I am sure that the Secretary of State shares my respect for all the current chiefs of staff, and also shares General Dannatt's concern for the welfare of our soldiers. Can he confirm what we must all assume—that the Prime Minister holds all the chiefs of staff in the same high regard—and does he believe that to discriminate against anyone because they had, in the words of a Whitehall source, "made a lot of enemies among the senior reaches of the Labour party" would be characteristic of petty, vindictive, small-minded politicians, and quite alien to the ethos of the military?

Des Browne: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those Members, who were rightly recognised in the Queen's birthday honours list. They have contributed significantly to public life, and the recognition is well deserved.
	I value the advice and support of, and the relationship I have with, all my chiefs of staff. The hon. Gentleman ought not to believe everything he reads in the papers, even if he, or one of his colleagues, might have briefed them.

Liam Fox: The Secretary of State is right: we ought to leave aside the vulgarity of the conduct of politics. So let us get on to the substance: can he tell us the value of the Ministry of Defence estate in Northern Ireland, and can he give us a simple guarantee that every penny from any sales will go to the MOD and not to Stormont as a result of any grubby political deals?

Des Browne: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure, but he knows that I will be consistent in my approach to the House, and I will make sure that he is given the figure and the detail underpinning it. I do not know the current estimate of the value of the real estate we hold in Northern Ireland. I do know, however, that I and the Government intend that where any of that estate is realised, those resources will be reinvested in our armed forces in some fashion or other. That is the plan. No deals were made. The hon. Gentleman ought to accept the assurances that I have no doubt were given to him personally by Members who are much closer politically to him than to me that they made their decision in relation to the vote the other night on a matter of principle, as I am sure he also did.

Hugh Bayley: What progress has been made in establishing the headquarters of 6th Division in York, and how many military and civilian personnel will it employ when it is fully established?

Bob Ainsworth: The headquarters of 6th Division has been fully established in York. It will be fully staffed by the autumn, and it will by then have a total of 55 military personnel and about 6 civilian staff.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement to the House on tranche 3 of Typhoon, updating us on what the workshare will be and what it will mean for skilled workers in the north-west?

Bob Ainsworth: There has been no definitive decision on tranche 3. We continue to discuss the detail of it with other nations, and we will announce to the House any definitive decision as soon as we are able to do so.

Michael Jack: Pursuant to the question of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Minister knows that Germany, Italy and Spain have all decided what their position is on tranche 3. He also knows that his Department is considering various options in terms of the number of aircraft it would wish to evaluate. Therefore, will the Minister once and for all confide in this Parliament of the United Kingdom what options he is considering, and when he will make his mind up and make an announcement?

Bob Ainsworth: There is no intention to keep the House out of the loop, but the situation is a lot more complicated than that. Discussions on tranche 3 continue between all of the nations.

Katy Clark: Government figures show that the cost of our nuclear weapons programme is due almost to double, from £1.1 billion in 2003-04 to £2.1 billion in 2010-11. Will the Minister explain this increase, and is he convinced that that is the best use of money in the current circumstances?

Bob Ainsworth: Facilitated by a White Paper, the House recently had extensive discussions over a period of months on the decision to maintain the nuclear deterrent. There will be further decisions to take further down the line, however, and they will, of course, be brought to the House, but the House took a decision on the continuation of the nuclear deterrent in principle.

Rosie Cooper: What steps is the Department taking to honour the memory of those in the armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. The names of the latest service personnel to have lost their lives will of course be put on the memorial in the National Memorial Arboretum, in Staffordshire. Various parts of the armed forces themselves have a number of memorials. The decision regarding recognition for those who died in service was recently announced, and we will announce the details in due course.

Julia Goldsworthy: Twenty-six dolphins died in my constituency in a mass stranding last week, and more than 70 were involved in the incident. In the immediate aftermath, defence spokespeople insisted that the only sonar in use in the area was aboard a survey vessel using a low-powered seabed scanner. This turned out to be a high-frequency sonar, and over the weekend it transpired that Merlin helicopters were also exercising in the area, using a mid-range frequency sonar that has been associated with cetacean strandings in the past. Can the Minister explain why his Department appears to have issued so many contradictory statements in relation to this incident, and will he commit to full co-operation in an inquiry?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Lady is effectively making allegations about the cause of the tragedy involving the dolphins. There is no evidence that this was caused by any activities of the Royal Navy, but of course we will co-operate with any ongoing investigations that there might be into this matter.

David Hamilton: Retention and recruitment is indeed a problem, but is that not as much to do with the fact that we have virtually zero unemployment out there, and will that not continue to be a problem? Surely we should be welcoming those from other Commonwealth countries coming into this country, unlike the Opposition.

Bob Ainsworth: We have a number of people from the Commonwealth in various parts of our armed forces, and a long tradition of accepting such people into our armed forces. I would hope that Members from all sections of the House support that practice continuing.

Patrick Cormack: What steps is the Secretary of State for Defence taking to ensure that the recent extraordinary resolution passed by the National Union of Teachers does not have an adverse effect on recruiting?

Des Browne: I have made it clear in the past from this Dispatch Box that I value the increasingly improving relationship between our schools and the armed forces. I have said before—this is my observation—that the more that, around Easter time, certain organisations bring attention to this issue in a critical fashion, the more demand we get for the armed forces to visit schools. So I am quite content that this issue be in the forefront of people's minds because unequivocally, when the armed forces visit schools, as they do through the Skill Force programme, they add significant value to those schools.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I press the Minister for an early completion of the review into the tariff levels of the armed forces compensation scheme? Will he also give an assurance to the House that when that review is completed, it will be published? This is important to many ex-service organisations, the Royal British Legion in particular, and to many of our constituents.

Derek Twigg: As my hon. Friend knows, we made some changes to the scheme last year to take account of multiple injuries, but as I announced previously in the House, a review is under way, on which I can assure him there will be wide consultation. We are considering a variety of matters, and we will publish the review when it has been completed.

John Reid: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on the recent announcement on the carriers, may I ask him to confirm that this is not only an affirmation of the needs of the Royal Navy but a statement of confidence in those who rarely feature on honours lists or wear a uniform, but who are essential for the defence effort of this country—our shipyard workers? Will he make it plain that, whatever the outcome of a future review, the carrier programme will remain at the centre of the Royal Navy's needs and of the shipbuilding of this country?

Des Browne: My right hon. Friend is singularly well-placed to be able to comment on these issues, not just because of his contribution to the maintenance of our armed forces through serving as Minister for the Armed Forces and Secretary of State for Defence, but through his crucial contribution to the maintenance, preservation and building up of our shipbuilding industry when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. My right hon. Friend knows more than anybody else how dependent on such work the shipbuilding industry is, particularly in Scotland, and the extent to which that relationship is at the heart of the United Kingdom. Those who work in those yards know fine well that if they are to preserve the skill base and to continue the historic contribution that they have made into the future for decades or more, it will depend on the British Government relying on their skill base in order to maintain the capability of the Royal Navy.

Afghanistan

Des Browne: Last December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out a clear and long-term framework for bringing security and political, social and economic development to Afghanistan. I would like to give the House an update on some of the progress that we have made since then in Afghanistan, based on my most recent visit to Afghanistan last month, and to set out future plans for the UK's military contribution to the NATO-led international security assistance force—ISAF.
	The security situation in Afghanistan has improved in the past 12 months. The Taliban's leadership has been targeted successfully, and recent operations in southern Helmand have disrupted severely their training and lines of communication. That has had two principal effects. First, their sphere of influence has been reduced; nine tenths of the security incidents are confined to one tenth of the country, and the rest is relatively peaceful. Secondly, we have seen them reduce their ambition from insurgency to terrorism. The Taliban's campaign is now limited to intimidating Afghan communities, coercing the vulnerable into becoming suicide bombers and carrying out brutal and indiscriminate attacks on the international community and, above all, on the Afghan men, women and children themselves. As the Taliban's conventional attacks have failed, we have seen their tactics shift to the use of mines, roadside bombs and suicide vests. Those tactics run deeply counter to the Afghan culture, as does the Taliban's reliance on paid foreign fighters—the so-called "$10 Talibs", who now make up the majority of those doing the fighting for them. I fully recognise that the Taliban's new tactics pose a different but very serious challenge, both to our forces and to the local people. We need to ensure that we do all that we can to mitigate the new danger, and I am fully engaged on ensuring that we do so.
	I share the understandable international concern about the breakout from Kandahar prison that took place on Friday 13 June. The Government of Afghanistan are leading the response to the incident and we are monitoring that closely. We have always said that the challenge of supporting an Afghan lead on security goes wider than providing support to the Afghan armed forces to include the justice sector, and we are already engaged in supporting a programme of justice reform that includes work on prisons. International support to the Afghan Government's security response is being provided through NATO's presence in Kandahar. Let me conclude on this point by saying that notwithstanding the extremely serious nature of this incident, it does not change our view that the Taliban are losing the fight in southern Afghanistan.
	The Afghan people, like people the world over, long for security, stability and prosperity. They understand that the Taliban cannot deliver those things. Our forces, alongside the US, Canadian, Dutch, Australian and Danish forces, and many others, are in Afghanistan to fulfil a UN mandate, to support the elected Government, to train and mentor the Afghan army and police, and to give the Afghan people hope for the future. I believe, as I think do the majority of this House, that Afghanistan is a noble cause, but we also know that it comes at a tragic human cost, as we have been reminded over the past week. The recent deaths of five members of 2 Para—as well as the 97 other UK fatalities in Afghanistan since 2002 and all those UK personnel who have been wounded or otherwise scarred by this conflict—are an enduring measure of the dangers that our young servicemen and women face on operations on our behalf.
	The military know better than anyone that this is a campaign that cannot be won by military means alone. Once security has improved—it has already improved— delivering improvements in infrastructure, governance, the rule of law, schools, hospitals and services must follow. Generating those things in a country that has been devastated by decades of conflict and that is the fourth poorest country in the world is difficult and challenging—it will be a long-term endeavour. But I saw real progress there during my trip, and there is now a tangible sense that life for many Afghans is improving. In Helmand, they have a new and extremely able governor—Governor Mangal—who is spreading the writ of the Government of Afghanistan further into that once lawless province. During the week of my visit, the local people of Garmsir reopened their hospital for the first time in two years. In Lashkar Gah, they had also just opened a new high school, and some of the girls attending that school will represent the first women in their families ever to go to school and receive an education.
	We the UK are not alone in our commitment to Afghanistan. Last week, 80 countries and international organisations met in Paris at the international conference in support of Afghanistan. In Paris, the Afghan Government's national development strategy was launched. That plan provides an Afghan blueprint for the future development of their country. Last week in Paris, the international community pledged $20.4 billion to help to fund it and reaffirmed its support for Kai Eide's role in co-ordinating its efforts to help to deliver it.
	I am not underestimating how much remains to be done, but the green shoots of development and democracy are becoming even more firmly rooted in a security environment that has improved out of all measure since UK forces deployed in southern Afghanistan two years ago.
	The focus on development does not mean that we are complacent about security—in fact, far from it. As I said before, the shift in tactics, while being in one sense a sign of strategic weakness, presents us with a different but still very serious challenge—one that our forces are confronting with the same courage, professionalism and intelligence that they have shown throughout the campaign. At the same time, the Prime Minister's December statement made it clear that, over time, we plan to rebalance our military commitment from one based on direct combat operations to one of support for the Afghans' own security forces. There is some good news here: the Afghan national army is a success story. Afghan soldiers are fearless and redoubtable fighters and the ANA is respected and admired by the Afghan people. Their professional competence is also increasing by the day. The first ANA kandak—or battalion—has now reached capability milestone 1, which means that it is capable of fully independent operations. Our soldiers are finding that the mentoring that the Afghan national army requires has reduced as its capability and experience has grown. That is no mean achievement.
	Creating an effective police force is, however, proving to be a more difficult challenge. To accelerate that process, the coalition has introduced a process called focused district development, which is, in effect, a mass training and retraining of the Afghan national police, district by district. That ambitious plan has an annual budget of $2 billion, and it is making a big difference. But we have to accept that creating an independent, effective police force in Afghanistan will not happen overnight.
	Counter-insurgency campaigns are ultimately about winning the support of the local population. With the diminishing relevance of the Taliban's campaign and the increasing delivery of development, I am in little doubt that we are winning that, too. It is in this context that I have, with the military advice of the chiefs of staff, decided to make a number of adjustments to the profile of our forces in Afghanistan. Currently, we have 7,800 troops in Afghanistan deployed to Helmand, Kandahar and Kabul. As a result of a recent review, I have approved the removal of around 400 posts from the Afghan operational establishment table. Those posts are no longer required due to reorganisation and the changed nature of the tactical situation. At the same time, we have identified a requirement for, in total, 630 new posts, creating a net increase in our forces in Afghanistan of some 230 personnel, to around 8,030 by spring 2009.
	Broadly, those adjustments have three aims: first, to improve the protection afforded to our personnel; secondly, to increase the capacity of our forces to deliver training and mentoring to the Afghan national security forces; and thirdly, to increase the capacity of our forces to deliver the civil effects of reconstruction and development in an insecure or semi-secure environment. All those aims are vital if we are to sustain the progress that we are making.
	Let me set out the nature of those changes. The first objective of the force adjustments is to increase the protection that we are able to give to our brave servicemen and women as they conduct their mission in Afghanistan. In the months ahead, we will deploy more troops to man the additional Viking and Mastiff vehicles that we have already ordered. Further specialists will deploy to man reconnaissance and warning systems in our forward operating bases in Helmand. We will also reinforce the Royal Air Force Regiment squadron that helps defend Kandahar airfield.
	The House will recall that the improvements that we have made to ground support and crewing arrangements for our CH-47 Chinook and AH-64 Apache helicopters have increased the total amount of flying time per month available to our commanders in Afghanistan. Part of the uplift will be delivered by an increase in helicopter crews, which I am announcing today.
	Among the most potent of all our capabilities in deterring and denying the insurgency is our ability to project close air support. In Afghanistan we have a contingent of Harrier GR7/GR9s that have proven time and again their value in defending the lives of our troops, our allies and those whom they are there to protect. The Harrier force first deployed to Kandahar airfield in November 2004 and has been operational continuously ever since. That is an impressive record by any standards, but I am mindful of the strain that that extended deployment has put upon the crews, their families and the wider role of Joint Force Harrier. I have therefore decided to withdraw the Harrier force by spring 2009 and to replace it with an equivalent force of Tornado GR4s.
	I have already mentioned that by developing the Afghan security forces we are setting the conditions to allow them to take an increased role in their own security. To accelerate that we will expand our fourth operational mentor and liaison team to accelerate the development of the Afghan national army, and we will continue to train the Afghan national police. In particular, we will focus our efforts to help Afghan national army and police commanders to develop the skills they need to lead their forces effectively in a demanding and often very dangerous area.
	The improved security situation that our forces are generating has provided us with a real opportunity to increase the rate of our delivery of civil effect. I have therefore decided that when 3 Commando Brigade deploys to Afghanistan this October, it will deploy with an additional infantry battalion headquarters and sub-unit. The forces will operate in southern Helmand to ensure that we are able to consolidate and exploit the security gains that we have made in that area and 3 Commando Brigade will also deploy with an extra troop of Royal Engineers to support our provincial reconstruction team by undertaking quick impact projects in support of the local community. Those forces will be supported by more medical, logistical and equipment support troops.
	In addition we will attach civil-military co-operation officers to each of our battle groups and we will form military stabilisation teams on the model of the ad hoc team that we deployed with great success in the wake of the reoccupation of Musa Qala. Both measures will enable us to take forward development projects including quick impact projects in areas where the level of threat remains high.
	My announcement today of a net uplift of 230 additional troops does not in proportionate terms represent a very significant increase. It does mean our mission is expanding. It means we are taking the steps necessary to take our mission forward as effectively as we can, with a force whose profile and capabilities are optimised to the conditions that they face. As I have explained, the uplift and rebalancing will enable our forces to strengthen their protection and to increase the rate at which they can build Afghan capacity in security, governance and development. Some of those new capabilities will need a year before they are available for operations in Afghanistan, but others will deploy much sooner. Of course, we shall continue to work to develop the optimum balance of forces and capabilities, in conjunction with the Afghan Government and our allies, in what can be rapidly changing conditions. The additional forces will ensure we can maintain the growing reach of the Afghan Government in Helmand, increase the military contribution to development and accelerate the pace of Afghanisation.
	We talk in this House in terms of numbers, units, and strategies, but as the events of the last week have reminded us all, behind these numbers are individual young men or women, working courageously in strange, difficult and dangerous conditions far from their family back home. I am constantly impressed by their bravery and resourcefulness, and on behalf of the Government and I am sure the whole House I express our gratitude for their service to the nation, and commit myself to continuing to do everything we can to support them.
	I commend the statement to the House.

Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. I fully associate the Conservative party with all that he has said about our servicemen and women and the dangers that they face.
	Those who have given their lives in Afghanistan are irreplaceable to their families and friends and we will remember those families in our thoughts and prayers. We will also share their pride that we still have professional and courageous servicemen and women who are brave enough to sacrifice themselves for the security of the people of this country.
	We must always remember that we are in Afghanistan for reasons of national security, to deny a safe haven to those who would commit indiscriminate acts of terrorist murder on men, women and children. We must remember that it is an international mission sanctioned by the UN and led by NATO. The Afghanistan compact, which followed the London conference, set out four objectives: increased security, drug reduction, an efficient Executive and economic and social development. Progress has been made on social development, but the process of government remains compromised by corruption and a lack of co-ordination between the military, reconstruction and political missions. The military command also needs greater clarity of purpose and simplification of structure—a point regularly raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and he raised it again today in talks with President Bush.
	There has been no progress on the drugs issue, with no alternative sources of income being made available to those for whom growing poppies is the only means of feeding themselves. If anything, the situation has deteriorated. Security has improved in some parts of the country, as the Secretary of State said, but it remains undermined in the south by the continued insurgency, the breakout of Taliban prisoners in Kandahar, and the Pakistani Government's attitude to border issues. A former NATO commander, General McNeill, recently said that more troops were needed to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency. He said that
	"it's an under-resourced force",
	and he expressed concern that NATO could become a "two-tiered alliance", with an insufficient number of countries truly committed to fighting against the Taliban.
	We have seen how the fighting in the south of the country has been left to the Americans, the British, the Canadians, the Dutch and a number of valiant smaller forces, while some of the biggest NATO allies have been risk averse, to say the least. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assessment of how great a threat is posed to the achievement of the aims of the Afghan compact by the underactivity of some of our NATO allies, and does he agree that the message from the United Kingdom should be that it is unacceptable for all those in NATO to have the same insurance policy if only some of us pay the full premiums?
	We will now have 8,000 personnel in Afghanistan and 4,000 personnel on active operations in Iraq. We have consistently raised concerns about the force size in Afghanistan. Does the Secretary of State believe that, with the increase that he announced today, the force size is now sufficient for the safety and effectiveness of our troops, and can he tell us by how many troops General McNeill believes NATO, as a whole, is short? How confident can the Secretary of State be that he can fill the 630 new posts that he announced today with correctly qualified personnel who have had sufficient rest and training? He tells us that some of the announcements that he made today will take a year to come into effect; can he be more specific on that point?
	Recent deaths in Afghanistan have shown the Taliban's shift towards suicide bombing as a tactic. We have seen in Iraq what that can mean. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that all necessary protective equipment is available to minimise the risk to our armed forces on the ground, and can he give an assurance that there is the fullest co-operation from the Afghan police and military in attempting to minimise those threats? The increase announced today was predictable, but does it not make a mockery of the Government's national security strategy, published only 12 weeks ago, which said that
	"we are entering a phase of overall reduced commitments, recuperation of our people, and regrowth and reinvestment in capabilities and training"?
	That is a dangerous and harmful fantasy; what we have is overstretch.
	I believe that the Government are genuinely committed to a successful outcome in Afghanistan, and they know that they have our full support on that objective, but they need urgently to address the gap between commitments and military capabilities if we are to succeed. Above all, we need to recalibrate expectations. We cannot simply drop a Jeffersonian democracy on to a broken 13th-century state and expect it to work in five or even 10 years' time. It will be a long haul, so we must properly plan for a long haul, and not for six-month rotations for our commanders, or sixth-month or annual budget allocations for reconstruction efforts. We need to bring our military and financial planning into line with the political reality. I am sure that those on both sides of the House agree strongly that the costs of failure are far too high to contemplate.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed both inside and outside the House the mission in Afghanistan, on many occasions. It may not appear so from his contribution, but there is much less between us than people who heard him for the first time today might imagine. I am grateful to him and his Front-Bench colleagues for the support that they have consistently given our mission, and for their appreciation of the complexity involved, which was implicit in his contribution.
	The hon. Gentleman made so many points that if I sought to answer them all, I would stretch the patience of the House, so I promise to do what I usually do in the circumstances. I will read the  Hansard record of his questions carefully, and if I do not deal with them, I will respond in writing, so that everyone in the House can see the answers to his specific questions. However, the heart or gravaman of what he said must be responded to. I carefully constructed the statement to the House to show that we were responding to changed circumstances on the ground, which have been brought about by an acceleration of progress in the past 12 months, largely because of the contribution of our forces, but not only because of that, as he knows. Indeed, the situation in the south of Helmand province has largely been created by the deployment of the marine expeditionary unit that served with our forces in the lower part of the Helmand valley, and which has transformed the area around the town of Garmsir. I am responding to that, because that marine expeditionary unit plans to be there only until about November, so we are putting some forces down there who will work alongside Afghan security forces to hold what has been achieved and keep the Taliban from reinfecting that part of the country.
	May I tell the House—and I think that this is important—that there are of the order of 17 countries in ISAF represented in either the south or the east, where the heavy lifting is being done? I agree with the hon. Gentleman about sharing the burden across the whole alliance. I repeatedly make those points, and there is now some success to be gleaned from that advocacy, in which I and indeed others engage in NATO. I should share the statistics with the House, because they show an impressive commitment by the alliance, the broader ISAF alliance and, principally, by NATO. When NATO met in Riga last year, there were 32,000 forces in the ISAF. When we met in Bucharest, there were 47,000, but when NATO Ministers met in Brussels only last week, there were 50,000, and those numbers are increasing. That is a measure of the level of commitment: there are more helicopters, there is more helicopter time, and other allies are now taking steps, in conjunction with initiatives that we have generated, to improve helicopter availability. In short, the NATO alliance has been transformed by its engagement in Afghanistan. I have a different way of going about it from the hon. Gentleman, but I think that my way has shown significant progress in that regard, in the number of countries that are there, the absence of caveats for their forces, and the significant increase of force deployed in the south.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 11 June that we are making progress in training the Afghan army and police. Clearly the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes that forward—especially the additional deployment for training purposes. Does he have in mind a time frame for the completion of the training of the Afghan army?

Des Browne: We have trained 55,000 members of the Afghan army to date, but they are not all trained to the level at which they can conduct operations without significant support from command and control, logistics and planning. As I said to the House earlier in Defence questions, the first kandak of that army has reached capability measurement 1, which means that it is capable of moving forward. There are other niche capabilities in the Afghan national army and security forces that are very effective. The other day, we saw the biggest ever haul of drugs seized by an Afghan force which we trained in part.
	From here, it is impossible to put a time limit on when that army will be able to conduct large-scale security operations on its own, but my right hon. Friend ought to look at what has happened recently in Iraq. In a comparatively short period, the Iraqi army has gone from being almost totally dependent on the support of the allies to being capable of carrying out operations that it plans and commands itself. When one reaches the tipping point in relation to the training of an army, then, at least in my experience over the past two years, the process of improvement accelerates quite dramatically.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the statement, the progress that the Government have been able to report and the reaffirmation of their acknowledgement that the situation cannot be won by military means alone. Specifically, I welcome the news that extra Engineers are going and the emphasis on giving them the ability to focus on civil reconstruction work. I also welcome very much the increase in helicopter crew numbers.
	I, too, recently visited Afghanistan, and I was deeply impressed by the work of our young men—they are, in the main, very young men—particularly in searing heat of more than 50°C. It was truly humbling to see at close quarters just what they are doing on our behalf. I pay tribute to all those who are serving in Afghanistan, and have done, on our behalf. I was also very impressed by the deeply thoughtful and measured way in which the British troops go about their tasks and how the long-term impact of everything they do is always very clearly in their minds.
	We did not hear in the statement anything specific about the poppy crop, and I should be interested to hear from the Secretary of State whether this year there has been any progress in persuading Afghan farmers to plant alternative crops. Last year's poppy crop was the biggest ever. That in itself is worrying, but with the price having dropped there may be better prospects for persuading farmers to look for alternatives.
	When I returned from that visit, my biggest concern was the state of British public opinion, which does not truly understand what we are doing in Afghanistan, why we are doing it, or how long it will take. Given that there is broad political consensus in the House on the issue and we are all committed to the long term, between us we must do something to try to move public opinion forward. In that regard, it is a matter of regret—to me at least—that the announcement should have been made on a day when George W. Bush is in the country. I fear that there is confusion in the public's mind between what we are doing in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The biggest connection between the two is overstretch, and the sooner the public can be persuaded to see those situations separately, the better our chances are of getting the public on board for a long haul in Afghanistan.

Des Browne: The timing of the new announcement was dictated by the decisions that were made. Once they had been made, I determined that I would come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to explain them. Unfortunately, I had to be at a NATO meeting last week, on Thursday and Friday, otherwise I would have been able to make the statement earlier. I always try to make statements to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks and am delighted that he and his party are in exactly the same place as the significant majority of those in the House and, indeed, in the other place in respect of what we are seeking to do in Afghanistan. Of course, many people say that the mission is impossible. They either say that it cannot be done and we should not be engaged in Afghanistan, or they misrepresent the situation. They do exactly what I suspect the hon. Gentleman fears in respect of the coincidence of the visit of the President of the United States and the statement, which is to look at everything that we do militarily through the prism of Iraq. That is deeply unhelpful. I have spent a lot of my time as Secretary of State trying to persuade our media that Afghanistan is the right place for our people to be. The fact that 40 countries are involved and that many of the most developed social democratic countries in the world are present with troops on the ground is an indication of just how right it is.
	This morning I had a conversation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, in which his support for what we are seeking to do in the context of the Security Council resolution was completely unwavering. We all have a responsibility to try to shift British public opinion. I believe that it has shifted in relation to the rightness of the mission and the military objectives, and we now have to shift it in relation to the progress being made in all the other complementary parts of the comprehensive approach and explain to the public that we need strategic patience in order to do what we are doing in a very difficult and challenging environment.
	As for counter-narcotics, this year we will, as usual, have to wait for the official count as regards the assessment of the poppy crop, but early indications suggest that we have stabilised or reduced the production of poppy. There may be several reasons for that. The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that that generates an opportunity. The whole focus of our efforts in northern Helmand is designed to put together the secure spaces that we have generated and to control the ability to communicate between them. That is part of the key to creating a secure logistical environment for moving other, legitimate, crops around so that they will not be taken advantage of by the Taliban. That will be key to building sustainable alternative crops for the farmers in Helmand province.

Ann McKechin: I join my right hon. Friend in supporting the considerable efforts of British forces in Afghanistan, particularly because failure would result in the complete reversal of women's rights in that country. However, I still believe that we pay far too little attention to engaging with women in terms of solutions for the security of Afghanistan. I would be grateful if he could confirm how many servicewomen will be going to Afghanistan as a result of his announcement; whether we have recruited any female translators, who are often the only people who can communicate with women on the ground; and what efforts are being made by ISAF to adopt a comprehensive plan regarding UN Security Council resolution 1325.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes several important points. She will be aware that the representation of women in the Parliament of Afghanistan is proportionally greater than the representation of women in our Parliament, although that is not the end of the story. She will also be aware that a third of the young people—6 million—who are in education in Afghanistan are girls or young women, none of whom were educated under the Taliban. As she knows, there are still attacks on women and occasions when things happen particularly to women that suggest we are not making any progress, but we need to ask ourselves whether the lot of women in Afghanistan would be better if we were there or not there. I was in Lashkar Gah a couple of weeks ago and saw significant numbers of women on the streets of that community for the first time, and I know which way they would vote.
	On my hon. Friend's specific questions, I do not imagine that she expects me to have those statistics at my fingertips, but I will ensure that she gets them and that they are given to her in such a way that everybody else in the House can share that knowledge.

Peter Tapsell: After another sad week in Afghanistan, may I remind the Defence Secretary that on 27 February 2006 I warned his predecessor that we could not hope to fulfil our declared objectives in that country with 100,000 troops or even 300,000 troops? Recently, the outgoing NATO general has said that he would wish to see 400,000 troops there. What is the point of sending yet another small contingent, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the main terrorist training grounds are in Pakistan and that the great majority of our NATO allies are determined not to allow their troops to become committed in serious fighting?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has the merit of consistency, but in my view—he knows that I have enormous respect for him—he is consistently wrong on this subject, and I am absolutely determined to prove him wrong in respect of the observations he made to my right hon. Friend the former Defence Secretary on 27 February 2006. I have been in Afghanistan on many occasions in the past 25 months; with respect, I am not sure whether he has been once. If he wishes to come with me to Afghanistan, I will take him there. He can see on the ground what our people are doing and talk to our troops—

Peter Tapsell: indicated assent.

Des Browne: But mostly, he can talk to Afghans. The significant difference between his historical analysis of the situation and what we are doing is that on previous occasions those who failed in Afghanistan were fighting the Afghans, whereas we are fighting with the Afghans. That is the significant difference.

Chris Mullin: I pay tribute to my constituent, Private Cuthbertson, who was killed in Afghanistan last week.
	May I ask the Secretary of State what assurance he can give regarding steps being taken to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan? As he will know, in the past there have been a large number of civilian casualties, which has been a source of friction between NATO forces and President Karzai. I would be grateful to know what we are doing to minimise them and what recompense is available when they occur.

Des Browne: I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend's constituent. I am sure that my hon. Friend has been a support to the family and friends involved, and has made it clear to them that the deaths, terrible as they are, and which can never be explained in a way that is satisfactory to families, are part of a greater whole that has made a significant difference to many millions of people in Afghanistan. The men and women who do this work are genuine heroes. With respect, that work is not restricted to members of the armed forces. A number of young men and women working in Afghanistan come from Departments of State, including civil servants from the Ministry of Defence; they have volunteered to work in that difficult environment and are doing a sterling job.
	My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I know exercises him, and we have discussed it on several occasions. The most relevant part of his question was his use of the past tense. We have made significant improvements. The last commander of ISAF, General McNeill, was very conscious of the effect that collateral damage, or civilian casualties, had on the overall mission, apart from the effect that it was having on those people caught up in it. He issued a series of instructions dealing with the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and they have had a significant effect. We should never forget that all the civilian casualties caused by ISAF operations are accidental. Those caused by the Taliban are, more often than not, caused deliberately.

Bob Russell: Last week, I met the chairman of the Helmand provincial council, who was visiting London, and he mentioned the positive help given to provide security against insurgents, the training being given to the Afghan police and army, and reconstruction works, including the building of schools, hospitals, clinics, houses and roads. It was a positive speech, and I took great comfort from the knowledge that none of that could have come about were it not for the bravery of our armed forces. The Secretary of State referred to Afghanistan as a noble cause. In order that the British people fully appreciate that, could I urge him to redouble his efforts so that people know that our military personnel are making a huge difference to the lives of ordinary Afghans, ensuring that their country does not return to being a haven from which terrorism is exported around the world?

Des Browne: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman because I saw his news release following his meeting with the chairman of the Helmand provincial council. He has done what is necessary, which is explain to the people of his constituency, through an Afghan voice, exactly what our young men and women are achieving. The quotations included in the press release from that genuine Afghan voice speak much more eloquently than Ministers of the Crown, the armed forces or, with all due respect, Members of this House could. What we need—and I have been trying to get—are more Afghans telling us the substantial difference between life now and what it was only five or six years ago, because of the presence of our young men and women in their country. That message will convince our people that the sacrifices and investments that we make in Afghanistan are worth while. Not only that, but when we get that country into some sort of stabilised position and can deal with the issues, which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) rightly identified, of governance, corruption and counter-narcotics, it will make a substantial difference on the streets of our communities, which will be safer and more drug free than they are now.

Kevan Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the progress that has been made in Afghanistan. Does he agree that one of the keys to more progress in southern Afghanistan is co-operation with Pakistan? Despite the critical statements that are often made, and which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) repeated today, does my right hon. Friend agree that Pakistan is making a genuine sacrifice? More than 1,000 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the northern territories and on the borders of Pakistan.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend raises an issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring, which is key to a sustainable and peaceful future for Afghanistan. There is a mirror image of Afghanistan's problems on the other side of the border in the Fatah and tribal areas of Pakistan. With respect, hon. Members need to be consistent. We cannot celebrate the election of a democratic Government in Pakistan without living with the consequences of control in that country moving from the military to politics. The engagement with politics in the areas that we are considering will create challenges for that Government, but we universally welcomed the elections, to the extent that they were successful, in Pakistan. However, they have consequences. The army is moving from the position that it previously occupied in the Pakistani community, and that change is important to the future stability of that part of the world. When I was in Afghanistan and subsequently in Pakistan, and when I spoke this morning to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I concentrated on the need—I know that my colleagues do it all the time with institutions and on visits to the region—to get the two countries to work together across the border, recognise that they share a series of common problems and stop blaming each other for the problems in their countries. That is the only way we will make progress.

James Arbuthnot: Following directly from that, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the key issues is that of patrolling the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? To do that, we need to fulfil the terms of NATO's combined joint statement of requirements—in other words, provide more troops. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the only way we can avoid the catastrophe of the forces of Afghanistan or Pakistan making incursions into the other? What more can we do about that patrolling?

Des Browne: The necessity for a battle group that can manoeuvre around the border is crucial. However, that is only part of the solution to problems on the border. I emphasise that there are 2,900 km of the most mountainous border one can imagine. There needs to be an acceptance on both sides of it that both countries face the same problems, with the same roots. There are opportunities for the two Governments to speak to each other. Indeed, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan was in Kabul immediately after I was there and after I spoke to him in Pakistan. Some progress was made, although this morning's press conference or statements by President Karzai suggest that the progress has gone backwards a bit. However, we need to keep working with those two countries so that their forces, which will be there in the long term, recognise the issues that they have in common on that border. If we can get them to live up to commitments made separately to secure and police the border, that is as much a long-term issue as any challenge that we face in that part of the world.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State made an optimistic statement about Afghanistan. Will he comment on the way in which the Taliban's tactics appear to have changed into that of a guerrilla war against an occupying force? Increasingly, there is pressure on those forces to cross into Pakistan. What effect will that have on the politics of Pakistan? How long does he expect British troops to remain in Afghanistan?

Des Browne: The only answer I am prepared to give to that question is that British troops will remain there until we assess that the Afghan security forces are capable of sustaining the security that has been created. We are making remarkable progress in that regard. To the degree that there was optimism in the entirely realistic statement that I made to the House, it was realistic optimism; but there was some pessimism in it, too. I recognise the challenges that we face, and we have to redouble our efforts to deal with them.
	I say with some regret to my hon. Friend that there is no answer to the problems that the Pakistanis and Afghans face in that region that involves the international community turning its back on them. To refer to ISAF, which is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected Government there and supported by a UN Security Council resolution, and which represents almost the whole world—there are no national voices suggesting that we should not be there—as an occupying force that people are somehow justified in fighting against is entirely to misrepresent what we are doing there.

Mike Hancock: Although the Secretary of State said that 50,000 Afghan troops had now been trained, fewer than 10,000 of them have been fully equipped. What will NATO do about the shortfall in equipment, to ensure that the 50,000 trained Afghans have the right equipment to allow them to participate in the sort of action in which British troops and others are currently involved?

Des Browne: There are, I think, 55,000 trained Afghans in the national army. There are also a greater number of police officers, who have been partly trained but who substantially need retraining, and we are working our way through that. Properly equipping an army of that size to face an insurgency is a challenging task. Every day we make more investment in doing that, but at the same time we are trying to ensure that the Afghan institutions of government learn how to do that for themselves and to sustain their own army. So we are doing many things, investing billions of dollars from the international community—mostly from the United States of America—in equipping this army to deal with the insurgency challenge that it faces. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a measure of exactly where we are in that process from the Dispatch Box today, but I know from my observations of that army, as it has been trained and equipped over the past two years, that we have made a lot of progress. All those soldiers who are deployed and working with ours in the south are equipped well enough to deal with what they need to do.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and in particular his indication of the progress being made militarily, which is a tribute to the courage, commitment and professionalism of our armed services. He has outlined some of the benefits that have now accrued to the Afghan people from our presence, but could he give an assessment of the development of Afghanistan's public infrastructure and national economy?

Des Browne: The Afghan economy has grown at the rate of about 9 per cent. or more a year since 2001. Frankly, however, that masks the problem in the Afghan economy, which is that a substantial proportion of the real economy relies on drugs. Breaking the link between the Afghan economy and its dependence on drugs is crucial. At the heart of that is the ability to deal with the comparatively small number of people who are extremely influential in Afghanistan. My assessment is that if we can develop the governance and justice system of Afghanistan in the short term, so that it can deal with the comparatively small number of very influential families and their leaders, we will be able to make important progress in developing the Afghan economy. However, exactly when we will be able to do that will be a function of our ability to get the Afghan capacity built up. As I said earlier at Question Time, we must bear in mind the fact that Afghanistan has been ravaged by decades of violence and that we start from a very low base.

Nicholas Soames: The Secretary of State knows that the whole country should be extremely proud of the performance of British armed forces in Afghanistan. However, even after this welcome, if very small, addition, there are still critical gaps in the military structure which, unless filled, will prevent us from completing the mission successfully. Will the Secretary of State, together with the Prime Minister, urge the Germans, who have remarkable and substantial engineering assets in the north, to realise that their business is south and that we and the Americans will provide them with force protection so that we can get on with the absolutely essential, almost untouched part of the vital reconstruction, without which the mission will not be able to proceed?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. At the NATO ministerial meeting last week, I encouraged all those countries with assets to make a contribution by deploying them in the south. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding the House that large parts of Afghanistan have improved immeasurably, but that we have to be very careful not to abandon and leave those areas as the soft underbelly of country, because if we do that is where the Taliban will go. The German Defence Minister reminded me—he was right to do so—that Germany had suffered some casualties where they are and that retaining the north and west and the area around Kabul, which we may be able to see handed over to the Afghans themselves, is quite important. The Taliban have a habit of going where the weakest spot is and I certainly do not want them to see success in places where we have already seen significant improvement.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I welcome the increase in CIMIC—Civil Military Co-operation—personnel, which will help to further civil reconstruction. I also welcome the reference in the statement to an increase in flying hours. Will he join me in paying tribute to the workers of Fleetlands, many of whom live in my constituency, who have delivered real improvements in service and repair techniques, which enabled us to have this increased operational capability?

Des Browne: I have no difficulty in acceding to my hon. Friend's request. Everybody who has made a contribution to the success we have enjoyed in Afghanistan, the recognised improvement in security there and the creation of the opportunity to which this announcement is designed to respond deserves the utmost credit. That is true whether they do what they do in uniform or out of it. In whatever way they have contributed, we should celebrate the success of these extraordinarily brave, dedicated and professional people.

Adam Price: Last week, President Karzai responded to allegations of corruption within his Administration—his response appeared in  Der Spiegel magazine—by attacking coalition forces, accusing them of having Afghan warlords on their payroll, of offering other financial inducements in the form of land and, in one case, of using their soldiers for force protection. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that, as far as he is aware, these accusations are entirely baseless? Will he also comment on what this says about President Karzai's attitude to coalition forces?

Des Browne: I do not think the hon. Gentleman believes these allegations either—at least, I hope he does not. There are often people who advise President Karzai of some quite bizarre allegations in respect of ISAF, and I have personally had to disabuse him on many occasions. I remember that on one occasion, a deeply corrupt individual who had access to the President's ear advised him that we were, in fact, training the Taliban; I wondered why that was given any consideration at all.
	On the other hand, we have to accept that this man works in a very difficult political environment and that the things he says are quite often edited and presented in a way that he does not intend them to be presented. I know him to be a very brave and honourable man who works in a very difficult and challenging political environment. As we can all imagine, to volunteer to do his job and face all sorts of pressures and attacks on personal safety requires a degree of courage. Frankly, although I often personally disagree with him in his analysis, I respect the man as the democratically elected leader of the country. In my view, we should support him to move forward as long as he is the democratic leader, and we should give him a little bit of leeway in what he says publicly.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State stressed the importance of security and intelligence, saying that he was not complacent. This has not been mentioned so far, but what role does he see for the spy in the sky—the Nimrod aircraft, particularly the upgraded MRA4? They could provide fantastic information from observation and reconnaissance not only over the Pakistan-Afghan border, but from elsewhere, to give warning about what the Taliban are doing and their movements.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. One lesson of deploying the current Nimrod to do exactly that in Afghanistan has been an astonishing level of detailed information. He will forgive me if I do not, in public, go into just how effective it can be. I know that those who fly the aircraft look forward to the updated and further-invested version and the capabilities that it will have. This aircraft not only can be used in a maritime environment, but has proved very important to our capability above Afghanistan, and indeed above Iraq.

Crispin Blunt: What is the basis of the Defence Secretary's statement that half the Taliban's fighters are paid foreigners? Does that include Pashtun speakers from Pakistan and has the break-out of 600 Talib fighters from the prison in Kandahar made any statistical difference to that assessment?

Des Browne: It is probably a bit early to be asking whether people who were sprung from prison on Friday night have made any statistical difference to the people whom we will face. That operation is still ongoing. We are, with others, keeping a careful eye on it and there has been some progress in rearresting some of those who escaped from the prison.
	I think I used the phrase the majority of the fighters, so that is more than 50 per cent. What is the basis of that? I will not go into the detail of the figures in the House, but that is our experience from those with whom we are engaged and from the fact that, quite often, we recover people from the battle space because they are injured or identify their bodies later. That information is provided to me by those who are engaged with them.
	The particular basis of that assertion arises from the place where there has been the most intense engagement with the Taliban over the last weeks—the southern Helmand area, where the US marine expeditionary unit has been deployed. That is the unit's overwhelming experience of the people it is having to deal with.

Political Parties (Funding and Expenditure)

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the funding of political parties. The Government are today publishing a White Paper on party finance and expenditure in the United Kingdom. Copies are available in the Vote Office and on my Department's website.
	How our politics is funded is vital for the health of any democratic system, including ours. Over the last decade, important steps have been taken towards achieving this. In 1998, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under its then chairman, Lord Neill of Bladen, published a landmark report, which went on to form the basis of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	It must also be fundamental to the health of our democracy that the regime for regulating political parties should never be used as a partisan tool by one party against others, and instead that change should be by way of broad cross-party agreement and achieved in a manner that carries wider public support. That spirit led to the passage of the 2000 Act by consensus and continues to be a guiding principle for this—and I hope any—Government's approach.
	The 2000 Act represented the first major overhaul of the regulation of party funding and expenditure for more than 100 years. It has greatly helped to improve transparency and standards, but it has not proved sufficient. In the intervening period, there has been continuing public disquiet about many aspects of how parties and politicians are funded. In March 2006, Sir Hayden Phillips was therefore invited by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to conduct a further review, including as to whether state funding should be enhanced in return for a cap on donations.
	Sir Hayden's final report was published in this House on 15 March last year. It made major recommendations for reform of the Electoral Commission, for tightening the controls on expenditure, for greater transparency and for a gradual move to enhanced state funding linked to a cap on donations. All parties explicitly welcomed Sir Hayden's report and accepted its main recommendations, including those for cross-party talks chaired by him to take forward the report's recommendations. Those talks proceeded satisfactorily until last year's summer recess. Sir Hayden then issued detailed proposals based on what he judged might form the basis for a consensus between the parties. It is a matter of great regret that, in late October, one of the parties decided to walk out of the talks, making agreement impossible.
	Against that background, Her Majesty's Government undertook in the Queen's Speech to bring forward proposals on party finance and expenditure. The White Paper is the result. It proposes measures to improve the regulatory system. It sets out the Government's aspiration for long-term comprehensive reform, building on the model proposed by Sir Hayden Phillips. In those areas where the Government believe that a broad consensus exists, it outlines plans to bring forward immediate legislation, including reform of the Electoral Commission and more effective controls on candidate spending.
	The excessive spending by parties and candidates gives rise to the wider problems with party finance that we see today. Repeated independent reviews—including those from Sir Hayden Phillips, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the then Constitutional Affairs Committee—have called the problem a "spending arms race", although some individuals, I know, still question its existence. But a spending arms race is evident within each electoral cycle. As Sir Hayden's report said, spending by the two largest parties was £90 million in the 12 months preceding the 2005 election, up from £65 million in the 12 months before the 2001 election. That was despite the campaign limit being set at £20 million for each party. Although the parties did not act unlawfully, their ability to spend well above the campaign limit under the Act reveals a problem with the rules. In the interests of democracy, we need finally to achieve what all parties had sought to do through the 2000 Act, and to stop this damaging arms race.
	The White Paper proposes some important steps for immediate action. Strengthening the Electoral Commission will send a clear signal that politics and politicians are effectively scrutinised: never above the law. The Electoral Commission will have robust civil sanctions to deploy, with criminal proceedings as an alternative. The commission will have more effective investigatory powers, enabling it to access information from anybody when it suspects a breach of the rules. Its governance arrangements will be overhauled better to ensure that greater practical experience is available to it.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life, the then Constitutional Affairs Committee and Sir Hayden Phillips all recommended that the commission would benefit from the knowledge and judgment of individuals with political backgrounds. Therefore, we propose, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended, the appointment of four commissioners with recent political experience and fewer restrictions on staff appointments. Far from politicising the Commission, that will enable it better to understand the people it regulates and so help it to do a more effective job.
	There has been widespread concern that a loophole in the 2000 Act has allowed certain unincorporated associations to obscure the original source of donations to parties. Therefore, as the Phillips review proposed, those will be better regulated, as will third-party campaigning organisations.
	Let me turn to spending by parties. In 2000, when I took through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, all believed that we were, in the words of Lord Neill's report, "buttressing" the existing restrictions on spending, including those in the Representation of the People Act 1983 and its predecessors. What we did not foresee at the time was the likelihood of significant increased and unregulated candidate spending as a result of the detailed drafting of the Bill, although the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was on the Conservative Front Bench, sought to alert us to the problem by tabling a clarifying amendment on behalf of his party.
	The White Paper proposes a return to the system of "triggering", which will regulate all candidate spending directed towards electoral success, and which was a key feature of the last Administration's 1983 Act. A stronger, more focused Electoral Commission will help to avoid the previous uncertainty about the rules. In parallel with that, we propose to re-examine the list of activities that are defined as campaign spending.
	Let me turn to the question of introducing donation caps in return for enhanced state funding. To do that, we would have to carry with us not only all the main parties, but the public—the taxpayer—as well. That is not happening at present. We are very ready to have the debate, and, indeed, to discuss donation caps at a lower level than Sir Hayden recommended, but that will require us to come together to allow discussion between the parties and the public. I intend to introduce a Bill before the summer recess, but with Second Reading taking place in the early autumn and the other stages being carried over into the next Session. That will provide ample opportunity both for comments to be made to us and for scrutiny to be carried out.
	By any international comparison, the standards of our political system have long been high. Nothing more infuriates most Members of Parliament, local councillors and, especially, the thousands of unpaid voluntary activists in all parties than the fact that their work and good faith can be tainted by the failures of a very few. However, perceptions matter hugely. I hope the whole House recognises the imperative in these circumstances of strengthening the probity of British politics and of people's faith in our democratic process as a whole. That is the principal aim of the White Paper, and we hope that all parties will support us in our endeavour. I commend the statement and the White Paper to the House.

Francis Maude: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and of the White Paper. I think the whole House will agree that party funding reform is very much needed to restore trust in our politics, and to deal with the perception that large donations, whether from individuals or from organisations such as trade unions, can buy undue influence over policy or patronage.
	I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that perceptions matter hugely. That is why we produced radical reform proposals early in 2006, well before Sir Hayden's appointment. Sir Hayden, incidentally, deserves our huge thanks for the enormous work that he put in. His proposals on Electoral Commission reform are especially welcome. We took part in the discussions enthusiastically, and, as evidence of our commitment to reaching agreement, even accepted that an overall settlement could include an increase in state funding, although we neither seek that nor consider it desirable. We further accepted that there could be overall caps on spending by parties, although it is clearly how money is raised that worries the public, not how much is spent.  [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that Sir Hayden's terms of reference refer only to donations. Spending by parties does not even get a mention.
	The Secretary of State will recollect that, in setting up the review, Tony Blair said explicitly that there would be no no-go areas and, in particular, that trade union funding should not be exempt from any donation caps. Was it not always understood that reform must be comprehensive, and that there should be no cherry-picking to serve the governing party's partisan interests—that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed? Does the Secretary of State accept that a partisan Bill now cannot provide the basis for a long-term and sustainable settlement? Has he read the independent research by Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky, which shows that there is no arms race in party spending? Is this not a myth to give credence to a bankrupt Labour party's desire to hamstring its opponents?
	Will the Justice Secretary agree that the discussions came very close to overall agreement, but foundered on the key issue of whether trade union donations should be subject to donation caps on the same basis as other donations? Will he now place in the Library the minutes and the background papers to the review, which will show that it was Labour's refusal to allow further work on trade union funding that brought the talks to an end? Does he recall that he and Peter Watt—the then Labour general secretary—refused point blank even to discuss giving trade union members the right to a real choice in whether to pay the political levy?  [Interruption.] Well, does the Secretary of State remember the revelation that a Lib Dem MP received a ballot paper for Labour's leadership contest, having unwittingly become a Labour party member through a trade union? Will he not acknowledge that when trade unions routinely declare that 100 per cent. of their members—and in two cases, more than 100 per cent.—are paying the political levy, the idea that these are voluntary individual donations to Labour are laughable, especially when polling shows that fewer than half of union members even vote Labour, let alone want to support it financially?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that his proposal to reintroduce "triggering" was not even part of Sir Hayden's draft agreement? Is not this change designed to make it more difficult—a caption in the White Paper makes this clear—for candidates to campaign effectively, and thus to benefit sitting Labour MPs? Does the Secretary of State not understand that it would be an atrocious abuse of power for the Government to force through restrictions on what parliamentary candidates can spend from money they have raised privately, while sitting MPs can spend ever-more taxpayers' money on promoting themselves?
	Last year, we came close to an overall comprehensive agreement that could genuinely have started to repair the public's trust in politics, and I say to the Justice Secretary that we can still achieve this. However, it would require Labour to accept that dependence on a small number of union bosses has to end. Sadly, it is hard to see that happening when 92 per cent. of Labour's income comes from the unions, which even now are squaring up to demand their payback in the form of a Warwick agreement mark 2. It is precisely Labour's dependence on these union bosses and the big donor culture that is preventing us from getting the reform that our politics so desperately needs.

Jack Straw: I greatly regret the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and his unsuccessful and thin efforts to rewrite the history of what happened in respect of the Hayden Phillips discussions, for as he knows—and as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was present, has stated—the truth is that we, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats all said on 15 March that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the Hayden Phillips recommendations, and we did so. Indeed, we continued to negotiate on that basis until there was a sudden change, late in the summer of last year, in the policy and approach of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome told the House that
	"the process that led to the breakdown of the talks...was caused by the Conservatives walking away."—[ Official Report, 7 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 224.]
	The right hon. Gentleman may, if he wishes, put in a freedom of information request for the minutes, but he has not yet done so. That would deal with this situation, however. An independent individual could judge the issue. We would consider this, but it is a matter for Hayden Phillips, not for me. However, we do not need FOI requests or the minutes of the meeting, because two other Members of this Chamber, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, bear witness to precisely what happened. The truth is that, as we have just witnessed from his partisan approach—which was totally different from the one that he and his party colleagues adopted in the working party—the Conservative party decided to move away from the main recommendations of the Hayden Phillips report.  [Interruption.] Did the right hon. Gentleman say, "Yes"?  [Interruption.] Indeed, Hayden Phillips did deal with the issue of trade union funding.
	We made it clear, before and afterwards, that we were ready to implement what Sir Hayden Phillips proposed, but the Conservative party sought to recommend something very different, breaking not only the spirit of what he had said, but, for example, of what the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee had said. It said, again endorsed by Sir Hayden Phillips, words to the effect that no party had the right by legislation to seek to change the constitution of another party. We have never done so. We could have when we had a very considerable majority in this House back in 1999 and 2000; we still have, and we are not going to do so.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no arms race. This defies arithmetic and everything that his representatives said in the working party with Sir Hayden. I will quote, if I may, the then Opposition spokesperson on this issue, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert):
	"We are much more interested in reducing the cost of politics and that is what David Cameron has made clear."
	So far as Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky's so-called research is concerned—it rather desperately needs some peer reviewing—he very skilfully selects mid-term spending by political parties. He says that there was
	"no time to analyse published and unpublished budgets of Labour and Conservative...organisations for 2004, 2005 and 2006".
	How convenient, because what we see and what we know is that spending always rises in the last two years before a Parliament is due to end. Had he addressed himself to the available research—the much better research—by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, he would have seen, for example, that spending donations received in local Conservative parties and marginal seats averaged £19,600, compared with £6,500 and £7,700 in Labour and Liberal Democrat marginals. What we—and, I believe, the Liberal Democrats—wish to see, and what the Conservative party wished to see until last summer is sensible, non-partisan rules that we can come together and agree on. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Conservative party will think again.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A considerable number of Members are hoping to catch my eye. Time is limited and there is a further statement to follow; may I please ask for one brief supplementary question?

Christopher Huhne: I am also grateful for prior sight of the Justice Secretary's statement and the White Paper.
	We Liberal Democrats welcome new investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission, its proposed new governance arrangements and transparency for unincorporated associations. In general, however, I have to say that this is a woefully inadequate package, and the Secretary of State is getting scant reward for his modesty from the official Opposition. There is nothing in this statement that will stop the arms race between the parties. He was quite right in his remarks about Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky's paper—which was, by the way, produced and published by a Conservative-leaning think-tank. Nor is there anything that will clean up party funding by capping big contributions. There are no caps on donations or local spending, and is public confidence not at a low because the Labour and Conservative parties are seen to be in the pockets of big business or the trade unions?
	Is it not scandalous that there is nothing here that will impede Lord Ashcroft, through his UK company, Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd, in trying to buy any number of parliamentary seats? Lord Ashcroft already accounted for 8 per cent. of Conservative funding last year. The Justice Secretary says that he can legislate only with all-party consensus, but in that case, many abuses would never have been cleared up, including some of the most anti-democratic practices of the trade union movement that were put right in 1984 by the Conservative party against the Labour party's views at that time. Are we now to give miscreants a right of veto over new offences?
	Does the Justice Secretary really think it just a coincidence that the Conservative party broke off cross-party talks in the very quarter when it took record donations of £9.7 million, which was an increase on the previous quarter's £3.7 million and a record quarter for a non-election year? Was that mere coincidence? Why should the Government not now legislate to remove the stink of big-money politics? Is it not time that millions of votes, not millions of pounds, decided British elections?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has had time to read the White Paper because it was sent to him, as it was to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does read it carefully. No one is talking about any one party having a right of veto; indeed, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman appearing to claim that it was wrong now to legislate on strengthening the work of the Electoral Commission and re-introducing the trigger, which formed a central part of the Conservatives' legislation and which they tried to ensure, for the avoidance of doubt, stayed as part of the 2000 Act. I wish that I, or our Minister in the Lords, had accepted that; the only reason we did not do so was because we were told that it was not necessary. We will proceed on that basis, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no one party should use the party funding regime as a partisan tool, because we must ensure that there is stability in the system that we adopt.
	I accept, and share, the hon. Gentleman's frustration about the fact that we came very close to reaching an agreement last summer. It would have involved many important, significant and difficult changes in my party, as well as in other parties, but we were aborted in that by the events to which a number of us in this House were certain witness.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question about groups such as Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd, we propose that there should be proper regulation of unincorporated associations, so that the source of the original donor becomes clear.

Tony Lloyd: If my right hon. Friend intends to proceed, as I think that he is right so to do, on the basis that any agreement must be made by consensus across the political parties and if he can persuade the Conservative party back into those talks, will he also seek to persuade it that the donation cap of £50,000 that has been discussed is a long way above what ordinary people understand and that there is an overwhelming case for lowering it to a level that would put politics back in the control of the ordinary people of this country?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our White Paper includes a lot of detail about how it is thought donation caps would impact at different levels on the spending of different parties. The sum of £50,000, which was Sir Hayden Phillips's recommendation, is a lot of money for the overwhelming majority of families in this country, and we are certainly ready to sit down to talk about a lower spending cap, as my hon. Friend indicates.

Douglas Hogg: I very much regret the omission of any proposals to impose a cap on donations. They would be welcome, although only if they were to extend to trade unions. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remind the House how much money the Labour party has received over the past five years from Unite, which is the union maintaining the industrial dispute involving tanker drivers?

Jack Straw: We are ready to answer that for which I am here to answer. We were ready to negotiate an arrangement with the other parties on the basis of what Sir Hayden Phillips recommended, including in respect of the trade union donations. We continue to be ready to do that.

George Howarth: I welcome the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's proposals in the White Paper, particularly as regards a spending cap, but may I point out that many in all parts of the House have reservations about linking a spending cap to state funding?

Jack Straw: I understand that, and we all need to understand that Sir Hayden Phillips estimated that, at £50,000, the enhanced state funding needed to compensate parties for the loss of income would run at between £65 million and £90 million over a Parliament. A big issue for us, as the trustees of the public purse, is whether or not now is the appropriate time for that amount of taxpayers' money to be spent on political parties.

Alan Beith: Bearing in mind that Sir Hayden Phillips's proposals were based on the unanimous views of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Government's moral authority to legislate in this sensitive field is undermined if what they propose is not the full range of Sir Hayden's proposals, with their different but significant impact on all political parties, including his concern about the potential power of paymasters of whatever kind?

Jack Straw: First, may I offer my congratulations and, I believe, those of the whole House to the right hon. Gentleman on his knighthood, which was announced in the birthday honours on Saturday?
	Secondly, on the question, the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs produced recommendations that were taken forward by Sir Hayden, who made proposals, which we have previously discussed in the House. However, it is very difficult to move forward, since, among other things, Sir Hayden outlined his proposals but then said that the detail had to be negotiated between the parties. It was very difficult then to take that forward without the kind of constructive negotiation in which representatives of the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives were participating perfectly happily until the summer recess last year. That is the problem. If the Conservative party now wishes to go back to where it was last July, we are happy to join it, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's party would also be happy to join it.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome the direction of my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon and the proposal to introduce the trigger mechanism into spending that is registerable as campaign expenditure. Does he accept, however, that the expenditure arms race is percolating across the whole electoral period and all forms of spending, national and local? Does he consider that a trigger mechanism and, indeed, the White Paper's contents are a way station towards an overall cap on the expenditure of parties between general elections and during entire Parliaments?

Jack Straw: Yes, I accept that, and Sir Hayden Phillips and previous reports have recommended that continuous, all-Parliament spending limits should cover what we loosely describe as national and local spending. That is, however, very complicated and requires detailed discussions between the parties and the Electoral Commission.

Nigel Evans: The Justice Secretary is right in thinking that the great British taxpayer would be horrified at the prospect of yet more of their money being used to fund political parties, but is that not what we have done in a back-door way with the communications allowance, which allows MPs £10,000 a year to tell our electorates how great we are? Therefore, the candidates in our seats may feel that they have to spend more just to keep pace with us. Will the Justice Secretary consider the abolition of the communications allowance and the saving of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money?

Jack Straw: The recommendation on the communications allowance happened to be a unanimous one from the House of Commons Commission, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have said in the House that there should be serious discussions about the communications allowance, or that part of it which I do not think is used for party spending, given the rules, but which might be seen to be. Let us sit down and discuss it. What we and the Liberal Democrat party have been frustrated about is that there have been no constructive discussions on this issue, because the Conservative party walked away.

Kevan Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals on unincorporated associations—a mechanism that has been used by the Conservative party to hide the source of millions of pounds of funding not only to party central office but to individual Conservative Members. Will my right hon. Friend consider making the transparency of those unincorporated associations retrospective to the beginning of this Parliament, so that we can find out where a lot of the money that is sloshing around the Conservative party has come from?

Jack Straw: I am not sorry to tell my hon. Friend that there are clear rules against making provisions that carry sanctions, as these will, retrospective. Therefore, the Bill will not contain proposals of that kind.

Chris Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that in the long term the key is to insert caps on spending rather than on donations, so that we get back to issue-driven rather than money-driven politics? With the benefit of hindsight, does he agree that the £20 million cap on national spending in the 2000 Act was rather too generous and that we should perhaps think about halving it at the next election?

Jack Straw: I agree with the central burden of what my hon. Friend has said. The £20 million cap would be better than the current situation if it covered all campaign spending, and therefore one of the proposals to which I drew attention in my statement is that we should look again at the definition of campaign spending in schedule 8 to the 2000 Act as well as moving towards comprehensive all-Parliament controls in the future.

Peter Bone: Will not the reintroduction of the trigger give more power to the national party and less to local candidates who want to get their point across locally?

Jack Straw: I honestly do not think so. That issue was not raised by Neill or during the passage of the 2000 Act or its predecessor, the Representation of the People Act 1983. Neill said that all his proposed controls should be in addition to the 1983 regime—"buttress" was the word that he used. Everybody thought that that was the case except for the noble and acute Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. From the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, he moved amendments to clarify what he thought might be a loophole in the law on advice that was turned down as unnecessary by Ministers in the Lords. I have regretted that decision of ever since. I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the worries expressed by the hon. Gentleman will be substantiated, but I will check and write to him.

David Heath: Sir Hayden Phillips did a very good job during the talks, in which I played a part, in establishing near consensus on a wide range of issues concerned with party finance. He also found some of the answers, until the Conservative party decided to change the question rather late in the day and therefore left the talks. Is it not therefore very disappointing that the proposals that the Lord Chancellor has brought forward today fail properly to address the issues of the cap on donations and expenditure and to make the significant changes to the transparency and propriety of trade union funding that we agreed?

Jack Straw: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. He was party to the talks, and he represented his party very effectively. The right hon. Member for Horsham also represented his party very well, but his script was changed sometime in the summer of 2007. It is disappointing, but we can make progress, if there is broad agreement across the Chamber on spending controls, which is what we are proposing. Everybody, apart from one or two flat-earthers, recognises that the rise in spending is the driver for all the other problems.

Martin Linton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals to close the loopholes on unincorporated associations and candidate spending. I also welcome cross-party consensus on the issue, if it is forthcoming. May I remind my right hon. Friend that to insist on cross-party consensus at all costs is to hand a veto to the Opposition? Some enlightened Members of the Opposition see that their interest lies in closing the loopholes, but others see that their interest lies in keeping them open. Those who want to keep the loopholes open are the ones who benefit from being able to escape controls on party spending by channelling money to local candidates and bypassing the controls on anonymous and foreign donations by channelling money to unincorporated associations.

Jack Straw: We are not talking about a veto for any one party; we are talking about areas on which it is clear that there is already broad agreement, as there is in respect of the changes to the Electoral Commission—there must be broad agreement on that, given that I am reintroducing Conservative legislation that the Conservatives kept on the statute book from the 1980s right until they lost office in 1997.
	We have sought to ensure that we follow through on the broad agreement on cutting spending—something to which all the parties subscribed—in terms of restrictions, but there are remaining issues to do with how we enhance state funding in return for donation caps. Those issues are complicated and—let us be clear about it—an increase in state funding would be involved, at a time when there are big questions about whether the taxpayer would be willing to bear that. There are many other complications, too. However, we were close to an agreement, and I hope that one day we will be close to one again.

Andrew Tyrie: I participated in the talks from start to finish, and the Lord Chancellor's description is a travesty of the truth—the House needs to know that. Frankly, the statement that we just heard was partisan. The return of the triggering rules will restrict candidates in marginal seats but not sitting MPs, who benefit from the communications allowance. As Labour holds all the marginal seats, is there not a blatant act of partisanship hidden under the guise of all-party agreement on the Sir Hayden Phillips talks?

Jack Straw: That is completely untrue, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I believe that he was among those who signed up to the unanimously agreed report by the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, but what he has subsequently said is completely different—both in spirit and in recommendation—from what was said in the Committee's reports. He is one of the flat-earthers—he voted against the Climate Change Bill on the basis that it was bad science.

Jonathan Djanogly: What has that got to do with it?

Jack Straw: It says something about the attitude of mind of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). He continues to deny what is palpably true—namely that spending by political parties has increased, and will increase, unless we take control of it.

Gavin Strang: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not bringing forward a scheme for the state funding of political parties? Is he concerned that some current forms of candidate and party expenditure fall foul of existing spending limits?

Jack Straw: Yes, they do; we accept that. I dealt with the issue of the 1983 trigger, to which, I notice, no Conservative politician ever objected—indeed, far from it—in my answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

Jo Swinson: Tight caps on individual donations and spending are essential to public support for the proposals, as is a debate on state funding, including existing state funding. As part of that debate, will the Government consider the Power commission proposals, under which state funding would be provided on a pence-per-vote basis only if electors chose to tick a box on the ballot paper? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would focus parties' attention away from expensive billboard campaigns and back towards more grass-roots campaigning and, dare I say it, engagement with the public?

Jack Straw: There are a number of imaginative proposals for additional state funding, including the Power commission proposal, to which I was quite attracted. However, there are also problems with the proposals. We have to recognise that each of the proposals involves a transfer of funding from the taxpayer to political parties by some means or other. We would certainly need broad consensus on that, and we would have to carry the public with us.

Andrew Miller: The Conservatives in Ellesmere Port have adopted a new scam on their website; they are acting a bit like a discount warehouse. A whole raft of public, well-known companies advertise their wares on the local Conservative party website—BT was one of them, but I persuaded it to withdraw its advertising. Not one of the shareholders of any of those public companies has authorised such a donation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that legislation stops that kind of scam?

Jack Straw: I look forward to my hon. Friend raising that issue during the passage of the Bill. Meanwhile, if he has a complaint about the regulations, he should refer it to the Electoral Commission.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on ruling out further taxpayer funding of political parties. Will the Bill contain proposals for individual voter registration, as recommended by the Electoral Commission?

Jack Straw: There are no proposals in the White Paper for individual registration, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am attracted to the idea of individual registration and believe that it has to happen.

Jonathan Djanogly: Then do it.

Jack Straw: We are going to bring forward—

Jonathan Djanogly: When?

Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) asked me a series of questions, and gave the answers before I could do so. If he calms down, I will give the answer. I intend to introduce proposals, but there are spending implications. I am in no doubt that we have to move forward, and a consultation document on this and other matters relating to the regulation of the voting system will be introduced soon.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how offensive it is to ordinary members of the public who value our democratic traditions to see rich individuals bankrolling candidates before the election period commences? Would he expect a decent political party to stop that practice pending the reintroduction of the trigger?

Jack Straw: I think that the independent hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was referring to his former colleagues in the Conservative party. We look forward to further and better particulars of what he has to tell us about that party's practices.

Crispin Blunt: I was not minded to ask a question until I heard the sanctimonious bilge from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). In the document, there is nothing to address the abuse of incumbency. One of his senior colleagues has sent out letters in House of Commons-franked envelopes to all new voters on his register that include a leaflet slagging off the prospective parliamentary candidate in that constituency, so until the communications allowance is addressed, there is a serious problem and lacuna in the proposals.

Jack Straw: I do not approve of that practice, and I have never followed it myself. We had a great debate about the communications allowance about 18 months ago, and one reason why it was introduced was to control the abuse of overspending, for example, on franked envelopes. That is one of the things that it has achieved, but I told the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that if there are issues— [ Interruption. ] I know that there are—to discuss, we should discuss them, but that requires all three parties to sit down and discuss them in talks from which one party should not walk away, knowing that they are departing from an agreed agenda established by an independent inspector.

Hugo Swire: The Lord Chancellor is right to talk about public perception, but does he not accept that the public will perceive that the Government are not serious about change until they break the umbilical cord between themselves, their party and the unions, and are seen to do so?

Jack Straw: I do not accept that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a different viewpoint about the relationship between trade unions and political parties, and he is fully entitled to make as many points as he wishes and to persuade his voters and others to support his party, not ours, because of our association with the trade unions. However, he must accept that trade union contributions to political parties, including the Labour party, are the most regulated of any contributions. They are completely clean—there have been no validated complaints against the payment of the political levy in the past 10 years. Contrary to what we heard from the right hon. Member for Horsham, members of affiliated trade unions know that they can opt out, and at least 10 per cent.—the percentage varies from trade union to trade union—do so. He is entitled to make comments about our connection with the trade unions, but what he is not entitled to do in a democracy is to try and rewrite our constitution in a way that suits his party, not ours.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members who do not wish to stay for the statement by Secretary Miliband leave quickly and quietly?

Lisbon Treaty

David Miliband: It is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to make this statement today.  [ Interruption. ] I urge right hon. and hon. Members to contain their enthusiasm. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which was held last Thursday. The no vote on the treaty in the referendum is important because of our strong national interest in an effective European Union, and that vote needs to be respected. The next step is for the Irish Government to give their views on how to proceed from this point, consistent with their aims for Ireland's role in the EU. They have made it clear that they need time to absorb and analyse the result and its implications and to consult widely at home and abroad. The Irish Prime Minister has said that he is disappointed by the result but wants Ireland to continue to play a full part in the life of the EU.
	I have just returned from a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg, and that message was reiterated by the Irish Foreign Minister at that meeting. He emphasised the diverse nature of the Irish debate, and the overlap in the debate between issues that are affected by the treaty and those that are not. He also expressed his appreciation that around Europe, leaders had committed themselves to work co-operatively with Ireland. He committed Ireland to work for a common European approach, with Ireland at the heart of Europe. There will be further discussion among Heads of State and Foreign Ministers at the European Council this Thursday and Friday not to take final decisions but to hear a preliminary report from the Irish Government and preliminary thoughts on the next steps.
	The rules of the treaty and of the EU are clear. All 27 member states must ratify the treaty for it to come into force, and we on the Government Benches will defend that principle extremely strongly. There is no question of ignoring the Irish vote or of bulldozing Irish opinion. Ireland clearly cannot be bound by changes that it has not ratified. Equally, there is no appetite for a return to years of institutional negotiation. The EU as a whole needs to find a way forward for all countries that allows the EU to focus on the big policy issues that confront us.
	Eighteen countries have approved the Lisbon treaty. The Irish Government have set out clearly their respect for the right of other countries to complete their ratification processes. My conversations with other Foreign Ministers, representing all shades of political opinion across the EU, show this to be a very strongly held view. The reason for the approach is simple: an Irish vote is determinant of an Irish position but cannot determine the ratification decision of other countries. The British view is for this Parliament to determine. In this House and the other place, there have been 24 days of debate, and both Houses have voted strongly in favour of the European Union (Amendment) Bill at each stage. The final stage is Third Reading in the other place on Wednesday.
	The Government believe that ratification should proceed as planned. It must be right that every country takes its own view on the treaty in accordance with its democratic traditions. That is right according to democratic principle; it is right in terms of our negotiating position in the EU; and it is right in terms of our national interest.
	Our national interest is a strong Britain in a strong European Union. The EU now consists of 27 countries and 490 million people. The reform of EU institutions and working practices is important to ensure that the EU can function more effectively and cohesively, and to ensure that the EU embraces an outward-looking agenda that tackles in an effective way international issues such as migration, climate change, security and defence policy and counter-terrorism. But treaty change rightly requires unanimity across all countries. That is why it is right that we take the time to allow the Irish Government to make proposals on what they will do next, right that we assert Britain's national interest in an effective EU that addresses the problems of the modern world, and right that we work to maintain the cohesion of the EU. That is what the Government will be doing in the weeks and months ahead, and I commend that approach to the House.

William Hague: The Foreign Secretary began by saying that the referendum result in Ireland is important because of our national interest in an effective European Union. I agree with him about that, but I hope that he agrees with me that it is also important because it is an inspiring example of democracy in action. People say that there is a disconnection between the EU and its peoples, but Thursday's vote was proof that when people are given a real say on the EU, they respond in vast numbers with turnout higher than in any European elections held in this country. Was it not also a courageous vote, given that the threats that Ireland would suffer if it voted no did not deter the Irish from making their own decision on the treaty? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not find it in himself to congratulate Irish voters on either of those points.
	Following as it does the French and Dutch rejections of the original constitution— a treaty that was, in the words of the then Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, "90 per cent." the same as the Lisbon treaty—is it not now clear beyond doubt that there is profound opposition among the peoples of Europe to the substance of this treaty? Given that no one would ever call the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland anti-European, is it not now clearer than ever that it is absurd to describe as anti-European disagreement with a treaty that further centralises power away from Europe's nation states towards remote EU institutions?
	The Foreign Secretary has said that the result has to be respected and that
	"there can be no question of bulldozing or bamboozling or ignoring the Irish vote".
	We very much agree with that. However, is not that exactly what he and the Prime Minister are doing by pressing on with ratification in this country? If that is the Government's position, why was one newspaper briefed yesterday that the Prime Minister
	"is privately ready to sacrifice the Lisbon treaty"?
	If that is the Government's true position, why will not Ministers say so? Instead of the Government trying to have it both ways, why can we not have some clarity from them? Did not a previous Labour Foreign Secretary set out the only right course for this country yesterday, when he wrote:
	"by any conceivable test of democratic procedure, the House of Lords should vote to put Treaty ratification on ice...to simply plough ahead on a straight vote to accept or reject the EU...Bill is to demonstrate nothing less than a contempt for the democracy on which the European Union is supposed to be founded"?
	Is not the Czech Prime Minister right to say that the Irish no is
	"no less serious than the previous French and Dutch noes"?
	So why, given that after those referendums the then Foreign Secretary came here to announce that the ratification of the constitution was suspended, has this Foreign Secretary come here to announce the opposite? Is the message that in today's EU small countries do not count?
	Should not the Government now plainly state that Britain will suspend ratification in this country immediately, give a clear message at this week's summit that the treaty is finished, and make the fundamental point that no lasting political institutions can be built in democratic societies without the people's consent? Is that not what real respect for the referendum would mean? Is it not essential that all preparations for implementing the treaty, including on the European External Action Service, are now suspended and that the EU takes no action that is not legally provided for under the current treaties? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that respecting the result means not asking the Irish people to vote again? Will he undertake on the Government's behalf that they will take no part in any bullying of Ireland? Would it not be extraordinary for the Irish to vote twice on this treaty, when British voters have not had the opportunity to vote once?
	The Foreign Secretary has said that ratification here must proceed so that there can be a "British view" on the treaty, but the reality is that the Government have never spoken for the British view. If they want to find out the British view, are there not two very easy ways for them to do so? The first is to call a general election, of which the Prime Minister is, with good reason, terrified; and the second is to keep the promise that the Government made at the last election to call a referendum in the United Kingdom, which would assuredly tell the people of Ireland that in rejecting the Lisbon treaty they are by no means alone.

David Miliband: Let me address the three key elements of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. First, it is in this Parliament that we decide the British view of our treaties—that is what we have always done, including when the right hon. Gentleman was in government.
	I believe that it is right that we— [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

David Miliband: I believe that it is right that we defend the sovereignty of this Parliament and our right to take a view on how Britain should approach the issue. Every other country in Europe is going to take a view on the treaty—18 already have. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that Britain suspends itself in some kind of limbo while the other countries take a view on the next steps forward. That is not a recipe for strength for Britain; it is a recipe for weakness.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered a new-found love for the way in which the European Union is working at the moment. He said yesterday that it is working "pretty well". That is pretty rich, coming from him. He is the man who denounced the current arrangements as
	"three more major steps on the road to a superstate."
	That is what he said when the current arrangements came into force, but today he tries to tell us that we should rely on the current arrangements because they are working pretty well. He also said that
	"a Conservative Government will not ratify it as it stands."—[ Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 353.]
	In other words, he is now saying that he wants to embrace a treaty—the treaty of Nice—that he denounced seven years ago as the end of civilisation as we know it.
	I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should understand one further point about the Nice treaty. He says that that treaty would make life simple. The first thing that will happen, if we embrace the Nice treaty as he recommends, is a new institutional debate about the number of commissioners—an issue left unresolved by the Nice treaty. Precisely the sort of institutional discussion that he says we should abandon or move beyond would be restarted by his proposal.
	On the Labour Benches, we all have much respect for Lord Owen and his contribution. We respect his foreign policy expertise— [ Interruption. ] Some of my hon. Friends do not, however. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman cites Lord Owen's arguments as a model of democracy. In this House and in the other place, the Bill on the treaty has been passed by large majorities, including significant votes from the right hon. Gentleman's own party.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of the Czech Government, and he is right that the Czech constitutional court is currently examining the Lisbon reform treaty. It is right, therefore, that the Czech Government cannot proceed with ratification at this stage, because the treaty is before their court. But the Italian Government, a centre-right Government who were recently elected, have said that they will proceed with parliamentary ratification as scheduled The Dutch Government, also on the centre-right of politics, say:
	"The Irish 'No' does not mean that we or other member states should stop".
	The Swedish Government, also on the centre-right of politics, say that ratification will continue as proposed. It seems to me that it is right that we do as well.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that respecting the result should mean that there should be no bullying of Ireland. He is absolutely right about that, which is why I defended today—and will continue to defend—the right of the Irish Government to take their time about how they want to respond to this result, and how they want to come back to the matter. It is for the Irish Government to decide what their position is going to be. The treaty cannot come into force unless the Irish Government succeed in ratifying it—it cannot succeed in coming into force—and the Irish constitution is absolutely plain that constitutional change requires the consent of the people; it is absolutely clear on that. That is why it is right that we wait for them to decide on their next steps, but it is also right that we are clear about our responsibilities to ensure that there is a British view in the discussions. That is what we are determined to do.

Mike Gapes: This weekend, the Government of Kosovo took over responsibility from the United Nations. A few weeks ago, the people of Serbia elected a Government on a pro-European platform. Throughout the western Balkans, the people of the former Yugoslavia are looking to the future enlargement of the European Union. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that this Government and this Parliament will continue to work for future enlargement of the EU to include the whole of the Balkans, and will he do whatever is necessary to make that possible?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believed that enlargement had support from hon. Members of all parties, although, to judge from the conference speech of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in September, there would be a referendum every time there was any treaty change, even enlargement, if his party ever came to power. He shakes his head, but his conference speech states that any increase in central power—in other words, treaty change—will lead to a referendum, even on climate change or enlargement, about which he says that he cares. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must defend enlargement.

Edward Davey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for coming to the House so quickly.
	While many in Britain, including the Liberal Democrats, find it difficult to see any way in which to continue with the Lisbon treaty, would not it be wrong to be seen to anticipate discussions with our European partners? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not in Britain's national interest to be perceived as prejudging this weekend's summit?
	Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House the process whereby the UK ratifies all treaties, including Lisbon, and state whether a treaty is ratified by a Third Reading vote in one House of Parliament or through Crown prerogative? If the Government proceed with Third Reading in the Lords and Royal Assent this week, do they intend to withhold depositing the instrument of ratification in Rome until after the European summit?
	The questions that the Irish vote raises are posed to us all, whether we are pro or anti-Lisbon. If the treaty of Lisbon falls, the European Union may well have to manage under the institutional arrangements that have worked adequately for the past seven years. They are bequeathed by the Nice treaty, which the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said at the time would be "a disaster". Whether the European Union's operation is to be based on Nice or Lisbon, is not our immediate challenge to obtain a decision, one way or the other, at the forthcoming summit and thus avoid further delay and uncertainty?
	Whatever the frustrations and difficulties caused by the loss of Lisbon, could not the cause of European co-operation be much more seriously damaged by yet another protracted period of member states being distracted by institutional debate or talk of a two or three-speed Europe?
	With or without Lisbon, in a world of uncertainty and danger, Britain's national interest remains in the European Union, playing a positive role. It is time for the European Union to focus all its energy on the agenda of economic reform, climate change and tackling terrorism. The Foreign Secretary's job now is to ensure that Britain plays that constructive role in Europe so that Europe's benefits become ever clearer to the peoples of Europe.

David Miliband: I will start with the hon. Gentleman's last point: the way in which the European Union can bridge the gap between politicians and people, whether nationally or at European level, is to ensure that it focuses on the issues that matter to people. International issues such as energy and climate change, migration and terrorism are precisely those that the European Union should address.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about prejudging discussions at the weekend. It is important to proceed with ratification because the Lisbon treaty is good for Britain—among other things, it increases our voting weight. I do not believe that he meant ratification when he referred to prejudging the outcome. We should certainly not prejudge what Prime Minister Cowan will report.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a technical question. Royal Assent means the enactment of a Bill—the turning of a Bill into an Act. As article 6 of the treaty states, ratification depends on the deposit by all 27 countries of the ratification articles in Rome. Clearly, that will not happen before the European Council this Thursday and Friday.
	As for the fast track to institutional debate, as I said earlier, the Nice treaty left the number of commissioners unresolved. That is one of the things that the Lisbon treaty was created to resolve, and it did that. If Lisbon does not come into force, one consequence is that the institutional debate about the number of commissioners will restart.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. We still have the main business to follow the statement and I therefore ask for short, single questions and brief responses so that more hon. Members may be successful.

Patricia Hewitt: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that we will proceed with ratification of the Lisbon treaty in Parliament. Will he confirm that he is in discussion with his Cabinet colleagues about how best to take forward some of the most urgent issues of policy substance that face the European Union, especially how to deal with climate change at such a difficult time of rising global energy prices?

David Miliband: Yes. Given your demand for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can answer that question clearly. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one of the French presidency's top priorities over the next six months is precisely to make progress on energy and climate change.

Bernard Jenkin: If the Irish people had been deliriously happy with the way in which the European Union operates, they would have given a more favourable opinion of the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps the lesson for those who operate in Brussels is that they cannot afford to let any democracy into the European Union at all, otherwise the wheels start coming off.

David Miliband: That is ironic, given that the Bill increases the democratic influence of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. As for the position of the Irish people, the hon. Gentleman will have seen, as I have, that even those parties that urged a no vote in the referendum proclaimed themselves pro-European parties.

Bernard Jenkin: I'm pro-European.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman may point to himself and say that, but that is not generally the way he is seen in the House—and, from his smile, perhaps he understands why. The truth is that all the opinion polls make it clear that 80-plus per cent. of people in Ireland support Irish participation in the European Union, including in the euro.

Gisela Stuart: The Irish no is a problem for the European Union and its political elite, not for Ireland, and it needs to be resolved at the EU level. Given that the Queen's Speech will not be until 4 December, there is no rush for us to proceed to Third Reading. We should not take part in bullying Ireland into a decision by rushing the Bill through.

David Miliband: I wholeheartedly agree—I do not think that I could have made this clearer—that there is no question of anyone bullying the Irish.

Douglas Hogg: You are!

David Miliband: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that I am bullying the Irish, but I do not see how I could conceivably be bullying them, since I have gone out of my way to emphasise that the treaty cannot come into force unless it is ratified in Ireland. We are absolutely clear on that point, and he can talk to Irish politicians on any side of the divide. He will know— [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members suggest that Ireland has been ostracised. The fact that leaders from all over Europe have said that Ireland must be given time to decide on its next move— [ Interruption. ] No, the Irish Prime Minister has asked for time and every European leader has agreed. On previous occasions, the Opposition have condemned Governments throughout Europe for making snap judgments. No Government have done so in this case; they are giving Ireland the chance to figure out its next move.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Foreign Secretary just for once rise to the occasion and realise that the problem lies not in Ireland or with the Irish Government, but with the European Union, which is widely regarded as centralised, remote, undemocratic, wasteful and inefficient? Will he take a lead, by going back to the Laeken declaration of 2001 and reconvening that conference, but this time designing a Europe that is properly democratic, respects self-government and is based on the consent of the peoples of Europe, freely expressed in national referendums, including one in this country?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman participated in the Laeken convention with diligence and seriousness of purpose, but the last thing that Europe needs is another seven years of wrangling about its institutions. This is not the issue that the people of Europe want us to address. If one message has come out of the Irish referendum, it is a command for the leaders of Europe to embrace the agenda of real issues, such as the economy, social policy— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks says, "Exactly." The Lisbon treaty drew a line under institutional reform, and rightly so in my view. It said that there would be no further institutional reform until 2017. That is the approach that has been rejected in the Irish referendum. If the treaty is not ratified in Ireland, it cannot come into force across the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, that issue needs to be addressed—I have not described it as a problem, because it would be wrong to do so and would imply that the Irish were somehow doing something that was beyond their rights. They have not. They have made their views clear. Their constitution requires them to have referendums. That is perfectly legitimate, and we should defend their right, because that is their constitutional system.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Laeken declaration of December 2001 set out a process that would result in the EU becoming more democratic, transparent and efficient and having social and economic objectives? Given the Irish referendum, will he work as hard as he can with the other 26 member states to see that those objectives are met?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point, as the Laeken declaration did address the social, economic and environmental agenda, as well as the political agenda, that Europe's leaders needed to address. I think that it is incumbent on us to complete this process of institutional reform—what I call the old agenda of the European Union—and embrace the new agenda, which is about the policy issues that the people of Europe want to see properly addressed.

Ian Taylor: As one of the regrettably few people who voted for the Lisbon treaty when it came before the House, I am obviously very sad about the outcome of the Irish referendum. It is going to be difficult for the Taoiseach to work out exactly what issues the Irish are most concerned about on the basis of this confused referendum. It has happened, however, and I am sad that the treaty cannot legally come into place. Will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless work to do what he can to safeguard the best things in the Lisbon treaty, many of which might be applied practically, and will he have a closer look at the accession treaty for Croatia, which may well provide the Irish with an opportunity to put forward some proposals to get them off the hook?

David Miliband: In respect of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which was about Croatia, I do not think that the Irish are on a hook. We are clear that an important signal must be sent to Croatia that there are no new blockages in its way to accession as a result of what has happened. It is important for its accession process to continue. In respect of the first part of the question, I do not think that now is the time to start cherry-picking parts of the Lisbon treaty. The rules are clear—that the treaty comes into force if all 27 member states ratify it—and we should rest there at the moment. We should allow the ratification process to continue in all countries; we should then see what the Irish decide to do and plan our next moves after that.

Ken Purchase: The Foreign Secretary is being exceedingly kind to the Irish in wanting to give as much time as possible in order to reach some sort of solution to what I can only call a Milliganesque situation resulting from the referendum. It may be necessary at some stage to find ways in which we can proceed, with or without the Irish. Together with his colleagues in Europe, he should now be thinking seriously about we might move forward—unfortunately, perhaps as a two-speed Europe—and ensure that all the advantages that Britain has seen over the years are not dissipated by this particular vote, which represents a very small percentage of the total votes in Ireland.

David Miliband: I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend's commitment to the EU, which we have discussed through his membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to tell him, however, that I do not support a two-speed Europe, which I think would be a step backwards—if it were possible. I say "if it were possible" because Ireland is, of course, a member of the euro. The idea that we will be able to design one set of institutions for 26 member states and another set for Ireland is neither possible nor right. When we and the Irish talk about finding a common European approach, I believe that that is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend is right that the search for consensus can cause delay, but it also increases legitimacy. It is important that we continue that search. If there is a treaty rule requiring 27 member states to sign before a treaty can come into force, it is important that we follow it.

Vincent Cable: As someone who voted for the treaty, does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that when the German and French Governments said that the Irish verdict could be overridden or ignored, it was both arrogant and unacceptable? Has he communicated that feeling to them?

David Miliband: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will send me those quotations. I have talked to the French and German Foreign Ministers about this and I have read the statements of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not accord with what I have read or heard from those two countries. In fact, since Friday, the European debate has been notable for the absence of any rush to judgment and for the fact that leaders—whether they be from France or anywhere else, including this country—are not saying that Ireland should be bulldozed. I would like to see the quotations on which he has based his assertion.

Chris Bryant: I believe that the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to refer to the large majorities in this Chamber—a two-thirds majority on every single vote—and in the other House, where a majority of 62 was helped by two bishops, the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Chester, who are people I do not normally agree with.
	Is it not the truth of the matter that our constituents are probably less interested in institutional change in Europe and far more interested in their energy bills? Without proceeding with ratification of the treaty, how can we ensure that the people of Britain can own French energy companies just as French people can own British energy companies?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes two important points. The Bill has passed with large majorities, including large numbers of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the small band of brothers that he was with in the House of Commons, but I assure him that if he looks at the House of Lords voting lists he will find a far larger number of brothers and sisters who supported him on that— [Interruption.] No, far more than eight, hon. Members will find.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a common energy policy is one way to address both the economics of the energy industry and the politics of the relationship with Russia and other energy suppliers. That is actively being worked on, and I hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will soon be able to report progress on the energy issues.

John Redwood: Can the Foreign Secretary not see that if he wishes to build a bridge between the peoples of Europe and the political elite, this country must stop ratifying this dead treaty, and the Irish Government, instead of trying to find a fiddle to overcome and get round the result, should resign because they lost their main recommendation and they no longer speak for the Irish people?

David Miliband: It is a welcome change when the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Government of Ireland to resign, rather than the British Government. I will take that as a large vote of confidence in how we are handling the issue.
	We know the right hon. Gentleman's view. His view was that the 1997 Amsterdam treaty meant the abolition of Britain. As far as I can see, Britain is alive and kicking, contrary to his assertions. It would do nothing for British democracy if an Irish vote meant that this Parliament did not carry on with its workings. Surely we should be defending the right of this Parliament to make its own decisions.

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend has stated that the development of a two-tier Europe would be the wrong response to the events of the last few days. Will he give a commitment to the House today that he will stand firm against any attempt by any other member country to force such a solution to the current situation?

David Miliband: As I said, I do not think that a two-tier Europe is the right way forward, and of course I will argue firmly for that. While the debate about a two-tier Europe was lively in the early 1990s, in a world where Ireland is in the euro but Britain is not but is a leading participant in European security and defence policy, the idea that there are two divisions in Europe simply does not add up. Many other issues show that the idea of a two-speed or three-speed Europe does not address the modern need. I am happy to have my hon. Friend's support in that argument.

William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that his statement is really quite disreputable given that this is quite clearly a democratic vote taken by people with full knowledge of what was going on? Will he not accept that it does affect the United Kingdom? We salute the Irish people, but the vote affects the United Kingdom because the treaty is no longer valid as far as the United Kingdom is concerned precisely because it has been overtaken by the no vote, which cannot now be changed.

David Miliband: At no stage have I cast any aspersions on the decision of the Irish people in this matter. There is nothing disreputable about reporting what the Irish Government have themselves committed to, which is to think about what they want to do next and then report back to future European Councils. I hope that on further reflection, despite the fact that we disagree on the issue, the hon. Gentleman might reconsider whether that is the most appropriate argument to make.

Ian Davidson: Mere words cannot convey my feelings on this matter. May I start by congratulating the Minister for Europe? He is following in the footsteps of the Secretary of State for International Development, who, as Minister for Europe, managed to persuade the French and the Dutch to kill off the constitution. The current Minister for Europe has managed to persuade the Irish to kill off the treaty.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not an Irish problem to be solved by the Irish, that this is an EU problem to be solved by all the countries of Europe, that the treaty is now a dead parrot and that he will not accept any urgings from colleagues in this or any part of the House that try to bully the Irish by suggesting that we should move forward with or without them?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is the friend of the Minister for Europe, who whispered to me, as our hon. Friend got to his feet, that he is in helpful mode on this issue. I am glad that we have not encountered him in unhelpful mode today.

Chris Bryant: He is just the same.

David Miliband: No, I detect a difference; I do not agree.
	I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) that there is no room for bulldozing in this. I do not think it is right to describe it as an "Irish" problem. On that I agree with him. This is, though, an issue on which the Irish Government have said that they want to take a view about their next step. It seems to me right that we respect that. Equally, it is right that we address our own view of the issue because Britain should not leave itself in limbo as the only country in Europe without a view on the treaty, not least given the fact that the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses and is awaiting Third Reading in the Lords.

Angus Robertson: I offer my hearty congratulations to all the voters of Ireland in the referendum. At least they had a choice in a referendum, something that Scotland's voters were denied by a UK Government. That shows the clear benefit of independence in Europe. Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister tell their EU colleagues that the only way to build trust in the EU and its institutions is to move at a speed and in a direction that European citizens are happy with?

David Miliband: It is precisely to ensure that the speed and the direction are ones that European citizens and representatives are happy with that the Lisbon treaty was created and then proposed. I completely disagree that, somehow, the citizens of Scotland would have more power or more say, never mind more security or prosperity, if they were outside the UK, but that is a longer debate that will happen on many other occasions.

Quentin Davies: Is not the essential point that the Irish decision deserves full respect, but the decision to ratify of 18 other member states with a total population of well over 200 million equally deserves full respect? Is it not the case that we all have our right to represent our views on this subject and to make our decision? We should therefore continue the ratification process. When it is brought to an end, we should all meet together to see how any differences that emerge can best be reconciled and resolved.

David Miliband: Yes. My hon. Friend speaks with the benefit of consistency on European issues, which cannot be said of all those on the other side of the House.

Roger Gale: The Foreign Secretary demonstrates an almost Eurocratic arrogance in suggesting that the Irish Government should be allowed time to consider their position when it is the Council of Ministers that ought to be considering its position. Will he respond to the clear point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague): following the French and Dutch votes, the British Foreign Secretary said it was no longer possible to ratify the constitution, so why is the British Foreign Secretary now saying, in precisely the same terms, that in the light of the Irish no vote it is possible to ratify the treaty?

David Miliband: I could not have been clearer: without the support of all 27 countries, this treaty will not come into force. That was said again and again and again. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the situation after the 2005 referendums, he will know that in the House, never mind anywhere else, the treaty was only just beginning its passage. It was certainly not the case that two thirds of the countries had passed the treaty into law; they certainly had not.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that precedent plays both ways on this. The precedent in respect of Nice shows that the Governments around Europe went forward with ratification. In respect of Maastricht, Sir John Major came to this Dispatch Box and committed his Government to continue with the passage of the Maastricht treaty, but did so after an interval of four or five months. The truth is that precedent plays in both directions and each side can take succour from those precedents.

Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that made Europe work, and that made it attractive to many of the new countries that have sought to join, is that the larger countries do not steamroll them on constitutional matters. Should we not therefore await a decision of the Irish Government before rushing to judgment? Otherwise, we are simply interfering in the constitution of another country and playing into the hands of those who say that Europe is giving away sovereignty.

David Miliband: In respect of constitutional matters, we are in a Union of equals, in which each country has an equal say. That is right and I defend it. I do not support majority voting on constitutional matters of this kind; it is right that unanimity is required. It is therefore important that we respect the vote in Ireland and give the Irish Government a chance to decide on their next step.

Bob Spink: The Foreign Secretary wants a British view on the treaty. May I refer him to the latest ICM poll, which showed that two thirds of British people are against the treaty? Does he not see that it would be improper to send the treaty's ratification for Royal Assent as the treaty is now unlawful? The treaty is not pining for the fjords; it is simply dead.

David Miliband: The treaty might not come into effect, but that does not mean it is unlawful for the British Parliament to exercise its view. I defend the right of this Parliament to do things that are popular or unpopular—sometimes they might be unpopular, but that does not mean they are wrong.

Stephen Pound: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my fellow Europeans. So passionate and vehement were the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary that for a moment I allowed myself to toy with the idea that another by-election might be in the offing. May I tell my right hon. Friend that I read with great sadness in the Polish press this weekend—in translation, obviously—that the referendum result is seen not just as a triumph for Sinn Fein but as a reversion to the old architecture and a victory for the Franco-German axis, taking us back to pre-enlargement days? Does he have any message of hope for those Poles whom we welcomed to our EU?

David Miliband: The message to the Poles— [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention to the effect that my hon. Friend would be better at providing the answer, as well as the question. I am sure that that is right. The message to our fellow European Polish citizens is that the European Union is stronger for being enlarged. The procedures need to be updated, and they should keep faith with their vote to join the European Union in the first place.

Peter Bottomley: When the Foreign Secretary was young, this House passed devolution in Wales, which was rejected four to one by the Welsh people. At least when it was offered again 20 years later, they had another vote. If the other countries of Europe were allowed a vote, in how many of the 27 does he think the treaty would pass a referendum?

David Miliband: I think I am right in saying that nine countries decided that although the constitution merited a referendum, the Lisbon treaty did not because it was an amending treaty. That is right. We should defend our parliamentary system. The Irish case is different, as the Irish have a written constitution with a specific requirement for referendums on all constitutional changes. Different parts of Europe have different democratic systems, and we should stick to our own.

Kelvin Hopkins: May I express my wholehearted welcome for the Irish decision and congratulate the Irish people on having spoken on behalf of millions of other Europeans who have not had the choice? There has been much talk of the emergence of a multi-speed Europe. Is my right hon. Friend interested in the weekend reports stating that differential inflation rates—and therefore a multi-speed Europe—are beginning to emerge even inside the eurozone? That might lead eventually to the eurozone fraying at the edges, particularly at the Italian edge, which has serious problems at the moment.

David Miliband: If I thought, as my hon. Friend does, that the Irish rejection brought closer the day of the socialist commonwealth perhaps I would take a different attitude, but I fear it does not bring that day closer. In respect of diversity within the eurozone, I would need to check the figures, either with the Treasury or the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I think I am right to say, however, that there have been differential inflation rates within the eurozone since its creation 10 years ago. I do not have data—certainly not to hand—showing that the inflation differential has grown in the past 10 years. In fact, some of the reports marking the 10th anniversary of the creation of the euro suggested the opposite. However, I am happy to look into the matter and work on it with my hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I am to call everyone who seeks to catch my eye, I renew my appeal to hon. Members for brevity.

Graham Brady: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that any change in the treaty to take account of the views and concerns of the Irish would involve ratification happening again in all the other 26 countries? Does not the act of proceeding with ratification in this country therefore show clear contempt for the Irish people and the Irish Government?

David Miliband: I was about to agree with the hon. Gentleman—he and I started our parliamentary careers together—and then he spoiled it with his ridiculous last 10 words. If there is a new treaty, it would have to come back to all the Parliaments that have passed the current one. My view is that no one in Europe should embrace renegotiation. I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who sat on the Convention, that he wanted to reopen the Convention—that would not be a good thing. If there is a new treaty, it must come back to all the Parliaments to be ratified.

Kate Hoey: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the vast majority of the British public will be delighted at the result of the Irish referendum—the referendum that they did not get? Will he answer simply the question that the public want answered? If when the Dutch and the French voted against the constitution they were not told to go back and think again—the whole thing was withdrawn—why is a country such as Ireland being told to go back and think again? Why has the whole thing not been withdrawn, with our saying, as the then Foreign Secretary said the first time round, "The treaty is dead. End of story."

David Miliband: The Irish are not being told anything. They are telling us that they want time to decide on their next move, and we are saying that that is a reasonable thing for them to do. They are not being commanded, bullied or persuaded to do anything against their will. It is for the Irish Government to make their own decision about the Irish national interest. I do not think there is any danger in giving them the time to do that. There is certainly no danger that somehow, during that time, the equation will change so that we do not need 27 countries to ratify. We will need 27 countries to ratify the Lisbon treaty. As I said in respect of the 2005 referendums, there are precedents on all sides, whether we look at Maastricht, Nice or the 2005 issue.

Andrew Robathan: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that his statement, and those of other political leaders on the continent of Europe, reveals a contempt for the views of the people—a contempt shown by his Government in refusing to give the promised referendum on the treaty, and a contempt shown for the French people, the Dutch people and now the Irish people—and that that contempt and arrogance are leading to a growing disillusionment and disenchantment with the European Union across the European continent, which do actually do some good?

David Miliband: No. There is no more contempt or arrogance in our positions than in the hon. Gentleman's decision to oppose a referendum on the Maastricht treaty 15 years ago.

David Drew: It is good to hear that my right hon. Friend will be helpful to the Irish Government. With that in mind, will he make an offer to hold any rerun of the referendum in the United Kingdom? That would be a magnificent gesture, and I am sure that the Irish people would support him in it.

David Miliband: No. I think that, as Parliament has voted against a referendum on two occasions in this House and in the other place, that would not be a wise thing to do.

David Curry: As a still unrepentant supporter of the treaty, I must nevertheless recognise that if it is not a dead duck it is an extraordinarily badly shot-up duck at present. However, does the Foreign Secretary accept that this need not be a crisis in Europe, and Europe need not descend into constitutional turmoil? There is a huge amount of business to get on with, which will not wait while we indulge in constitutional musings. Is this not a wonderful opportunity for President Sarkozy to achieve a spectacular success, and become even more famous than his wife?

David Miliband: I am not sure whether politics is a route to greater fame than fashion and song, never mind other pursuits. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the rejection of the treaty in the referendum is a blow to reform of the European Union. We must wait to see the Irish view before the next steps can be taken.

Douglas Hogg: Just a few answers ago, the Foreign Secretary said that renegotiation was not an option. If that is true, in reality the treaty is dead, and if that is the case why on earth is the House of Lords debating the Bill's Third Reading on Wednesday?

David Miliband: I repeat that I do not support renegotiation, I do not support a two-tier Europe, and I do not support the new Convention that is being proposed. That does not seem to me to negate the fact that, 95 per cent. of the way through the process, it is right for us to complete the passage of the legislation so that the British Parliament can express a clear view that we can take into European discussions. That has been urged on us throughout Europe, and the Irish have made it clear that they would respect countries that took such action.

Hugo Swire: All true democrats in the House will wish to join me in congratulating my old friend Declan Ganley on his inspired leadership of the no campaign in Ireland. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to display his own leadership skills, which may be called on by his party sooner rather than later, by leading us out of this mess. It is not up to the Irish, who have voted no, to reflect; it is up to the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in Europe to articulate a way forward, but before they do so they must acknowledge that the treaty is now dead.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the Irish responsibility, and about the freedom of the Irish to decide their next move. We also disagree about our position. I am clear about the fact that we should pass the treaty; I am also clear about the fact that if it is not passed everywhere else, it will not come into force.

Peter Bone: Is not the Foreign Secretary rather like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python sketch? He is trying to persuade people that the parrot is not dead, but is not the truth of the matter that the Lisbon treaty has expired, is deceased, has gone to its maker, and is—actually—dead?

David Miliband: I do not think that I am a shopkeeper who has missed his vocation, but we shall see, on the basis of the discussions that take place.

Christopher Chope: Will the Foreign Secretary condemn all the Members of the European Parliament who are refusing to respect the verdict of the Irish people?

David Miliband: Anyone who refuses to respect the decision of the Irish people is obviously not doing justice by the systems that exist. I have not seen the quotations to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am happy to look at them.

Nigel Evans: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the British people feel any more warmly towards the Lisbon treaty than the Irish did last Thursday?

David Miliband: I only wish that 80 per cent. of the British people— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has been giving a running commentary on the whole exercise. Much as I like the sound of his voice, I do not think I like it as much as he does. Perhaps he could give us a break for a while.
	I wish that 80 per cent. of the British people agreed in the same way the Irish do that the European Union is a good thing, but sadly we cannot hope for quite such dizzy heights in this country.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Foreign Secretary rightly said at the outset that he did not want to bully the Irish people, but surely pursuing the ratification process in this country while working with the French and Germans to ensure that other countries ratify the treaty constitutes subtle playground bullying tactics, intended to ostracise Ireland and try to persuade it to think again.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the Irish people if he thinks that talking to the French and Germans—as if that were some kind of sin in the European Union—will bully them into anything. However, I can tell him one thing that will make him happy: I had an excellent discussion with the Polish Foreign Minister today about the plans for each of our countries. The hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for the presence of Poles in this country and Polish participation in the European Union, and I can assure him that the Polish Foreign Minister and I were absolutely agreed on the next steps forward.

Shailesh Vara: What does the Foreign Secretary think about the fact that Britain and its European allies are actively preaching the importance of the rule of law to various parts of the world, yet when it comes to the Lisbon treaty, Britain and those same European allies are actively conspiring to circumvent the rule of law?

David Miliband: There is no circumvention, active or otherwise. There is no question of anyone trying to take away the democratic rights of the people of Ireland. If they do not pass the treaty, the treaty will not come into law. Nothing could be clearer than that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has waited all this time to ask a question that I have already answered at least a dozen times during this question-and-answer session.

Orders of the Day

Children and Young Persons Bill  [Lords]

[ Relevant documents: The First Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, HC 359,Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]; and the Government response, Third Special Report from the Committee, HC 711; and The Fifteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny, HC 440, and the Government's reply, letter of 4th June from the  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Children, Young People and Families) to  the Chairman of the Committee. ]
	 Order for Second Reading read.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Every child should have the right to be happy, healthy, safe and successful, and we must help families to stay together and achieve the best for their children. When that is not possible, however, it is our duty to ensure that an outstanding system of public care is in place: a system that is ambitious for children, provides them with good parents, puts a premium on their needs and wishes, and will accept for those children no less than we would want for our own. Many Members in all parts of the House have promoted the interests of children in care, and I welcome the support that the Bill has received. I am sure that today's debate and our deliberations in Committee will continue that constructive dialogue.
	As well as introducing specific measures for children in care, the Bill enables a statutory duty, for the first time, to be placed on the Secretary of State to promote the well-being of children, complementing the existing duty to promote educational achievement and embedding the principles of Every Child Matters at the heart of government. As with all duties, uses of the duty for significant long-term commitments will always be subject to the usual parliamentary procedure and authority, but this unequivocal commitment to all children, a landmark in any terms, matters most to those for whom the state has parental responsibility.
	Approximately 60,000 children are in care at any one time, in most cases because of abuse or neglect. They need the highest standard of care to help them to overcome the multiple disadvantages that they often face—disadvantages that all too often contribute to a host of poor outcomes. For example, looked-after children are five times less likely to achieve five good GCSEs, eight times more likely to be excluded from school and nine times more likely to have special educational needs. Just under half have a mental health problem, and a quarter of adults in prison today have been in care.

Ann Coffey: While I welcome the Bill, I believe that if we are to achieve its central aim of improving outcomes for children in care, we must improve the quality of inspection of children's homes to ensure that they provide the best possible care for young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current review of national minimum standards should include an obligation for inspection reports to contain a summary of proper evaluations of all incidences of running away, assault and criminal damage, so that placing authorities are better able to assess whether a home is meeting the Staying Safe criteria?

Beverley Hughes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work, and the expertise that she has acquired in helping us with our proposals. I am particularly grateful to her for examining what happens, or currently does not happen, to inspection reports. I know that she has discussed the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). We shall want to explore with her ways in which the use to which inspection reports are put can include the elements that she has mentioned, and thus become a much stronger lever for improvement in the quality of care.

Bob Spink: On outcomes for children in care, I welcome the provisions on support for those in higher education, but will the Minister give more support to children who want to go into vocational education or apprenticeships in the way that I did?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, that is equally important. The current provisions allow for the funding of first-time level 2 and level 3 vocational courses, and also for local authorities to contribute to children's subsistence costs when they go into vocational education—and I am pleased to say that more of them are going into that. The real issue at present, however, is that only 6 per cent. go to university, which is why we have placed an emphasis on enabling them to do so more readily.
	The figures I was citing mean that a child in care is more likely to end up in custody than at a university. That is not to say that outcomes for children in care have not improved over recent years; they have done, as a result of measures introduced by this Government. The five-year Quality Protects programme began the reform of children's services, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 was designed to delay young people being discharged from care until they are ready, and the Children Act 2004 and the Every Child Matters programme are transforming multi-agency arrangements for vulnerable children. Indeed, the Every Child Matters programme and the children's plan have given us the essential platform for the further reforms in this Bill.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the great leadership she has shown in this area. On the vulnerability of young people leaving care, is she going to mention the possibility of extending the care period beyond the age of 18? If she is not going to mention it, has she nevertheless considered it?

Beverley Hughes: I will refer to that shortly, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
	In addition to the measures I have mentioned, there has been significant extra spending. Between 2001-02 and 2006-07, Government funding rose from £1.3 million to £2.1 million, during a period when the number of children in care levelled off.
	All this has made a difference. The proportion of such children in education, employment or training at 19 has increased by 8 per cent. and educational attainment continues to rise. The truth is, however, that although the life chances of all children have improved, those of children in care have not improved as fast, and although their poor outcomes are undoubtedly significantly related to the serious problems with which they come into care, for too many children they are also exacerbated by the very experience of care itself. Multiple placements, successive social workers and moving school at crucial times all militate against the stability and strong attachments that these children need in order to thrive. Therefore, our priority in this Bill is to achieve a step change in the improvements we have already begun to see for children in care, to enable them to progress further and faster and, crucially, to close the inequality gaps between them and other children.
	The Bill follows the Care Matters White Paper that we published last June, which set out our strategy to transform the life chances of children in care. It drew on detailed and extensive research and a wide-ranging consultation with children and young people themselves, parents, carers, local authorities and voluntary organisations. The Bill and the White Paper enshrine four key principles: good parenting from every person involved in these children's lives; the voice of young people being at the heart of the system; stability and continuity as its hallmarks; and an uncompromising culture of high aspirations.
	We all understand the importance of strong, warm, interested parents in developing happy and successful children. When a child lacks that support from their own parents, we have not just a legal, but a moral responsibility to look after children in care as well as any good parent would. The Bill embeds good "corporate parenting" across the whole care system—from carers, teachers and social workers to directors of children's services and elected lead members. As the Care Matters implementation plan makes clear, everyone in the system must not only care for looked-after children, but also care about them. Replicating the care that a child would normally receive from parents means a change of culture, which we expect directors of children's services and lead members to drive forward. It also means a relentless focus on the quality of care in the places children live.
	Despite some excellent provision, only a quarter of residential homes meet 90 per cent. of the national minimum standards. That is completely unacceptable. The Bill therefore gives Her Majesty's chief inspector more power to take swift and decisive action when standards are not met. Clause 26 allows her to issue a "compliance notice" to providers failing to meet expected standards, while clause 27 allows the chief inspector to restrict admissions to residential settings where necessary. Simultaneously, we are reviewing the national minimum standards to make them clearer and more focused on outcomes for children. The Bill also addresses foster care approvals, establishing an independent review mechanism similar to the current mechanism allowing prospective adopters to challenge decisions by adoption agencies.
	Improving quality also means developing a truly world-class children's work force. In social care, that means a stable, motivated work force who are appropriately trained, skilled and confident in their abilities.

Hugo Swire: I am listening with interest to the Minister's comments. She will be aware that the heading of clause 8 is "Well-being of children and young persons", yet parliamentary hearings in May 2000 recommended that staff in all social service departments should receive further training on female genital mutilation. It is thought that about 98,000 girls under the age of 15 have either undergone, or are at risk of undergoing, female genital mutilation, yet there has not been a single prosecution since the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 became law. Therefore, we are failing those children.

Beverley Hughes: More might need to be done to raise the level of awareness and consciousness among social workers, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will pay attention to whether that is necessary in his work on the work force reforms. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that we have taken the necessary action to outlaw that practice, but I agree that social workers need to be alive to the possibility of it happening.
	Alongside the provisions in the Bill, the Government are investing £73 million over the next three years to improve the quality, capacity and supply of social workers for children and families. I am sure that other Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the social workers, foster carers, residential workers and others who contribute so much to children in care. They are on the front line, keeping children safe every day, yet they are often in the firing line for critics and headline writers. We must be relentless in eradicating poor practice, and we will be, but we should also applaud the talent and commitment of those doing the caring, without whom the measures in this Bill could not be achieved.
	Part 1 of the Bill will also enable the piloting of new social work practices, allowing local authorities to delegate some of their social services functions to more autonomous agencies. We want to explore through these pilots whether additional flexibilities and freedoms will deliver a more personalised and effective service to children. We will be working closely with partners to implement the pilots, and we will commission an independent evaluation before deciding whether to extend these social work practices nationally.
	Effective corporate parenting depends upon close contact between practitioners and the children. Clause 16 places a duty on social workers to visit regularly all children in care, whatever and wherever their placement, and including those in custody. Clauses 18 and 19 also require regular visits by social workers to disabled children placed away from home long term, as well as support for the family at home.
	The second key principle of the Bill is that the child's voice should be central. In future, the child's views must be actively solicited and taken fully into account, as any parent would do.

Joan Humble: I welcome the clauses that give more powers and responsibility to independent reviewing officers and more independent visitors to children, but will my right hon. Friend also look at improving the availability of independent advocacy to these children because, through independent advocacy, their voice will definitely be better heard?

Beverley Hughes: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has long championed this issue and I pay tribute to her role in supporting the interests of children in care. The measures in the Bill on independent reviewing officers will go a very long way toward making sure that children have a stronger say. I certainly want local authorities to appoint independent advocates where that is necessary, but I point out to my hon. Friend that, in this Bill, we are trying to get everybody involved with children to see themselves as advocates for those children. That, to me, is what the system lacks at the moment, and that is what we are hoping to achieve.

John Hemming: On independent advocates, whom I have dealt with myself, does the Minister not accept that where the local authority is paying their salary, that creates a conflict of interest? Does she not further accept that a child who is Gillick-competent should be permitted to appoint their own solicitor from the age of 12-plus, rather than the guardian ad litem coming in and ignoring the views of the child?

Beverley Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise; nor do I think that that does a true service to the people who undertake the independent advocacy function. They are perfectly capable of representing the views of children and advocating for them, which is why they want to do that work. It does not matter terribly much who is paying for that, and I do not think that it compromises at all their ability to press the interests of children.
	Clauses 11 to 15 lay the foundation for a systematic refocusing of the independent reviewing officer's role and practice. They make a single, named IRO responsible for monitoring the performance of the local authority and overseeing the care planning process, so that it is fair and reasonable and gives proper weight to the child's wishes. The IRO will not only spend time with the child before a care planning review, but will check that other professionals are also listening and responding to the child. I considered carefully whether we should now, at this point, make the IRO fully independent of the local authority, and I can tell Members that it was a finely balanced decision. If these reforms do not quickly achieve the step change that we require, we will go further, which is why the Bill includes an enabling power to make IROs fully independent of local authorities if necessary.
	Stability is the foundation for any child's development, and yet the experience of care for many children is one of instability and unpredictable change. Looked-after children are five times more likely to move schools in years 10 and 11 than other children. Some see as many as 30 social workers or go through nine or 10 care placements within a few years. Children cannot be happy and they cannot do well at school or be ambitious for the future when they are subjected to such regular upheavals.

Joan Ryan: Foster carers from my constituency came to the House today and wanted to make it clear to me that they support this Bill, as I do, and I pay tribute to them for the good work that they do. The one point that they really wanted me to press with my right hon. Friend—it relates to stability, the ability to stay on at school and associated issues—is their support for the "staying put" scheme, which is coming out in pilot form today. They are very keen to know when it might be rolled out nationally, and they are very supportive of that proposal, as, indeed, I believe many Members of this House are.

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that and I join her in paying tribute to the fantastic work that foster carers do. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met a group of foster carers today to talk about the "staying put" pilots, and he announced the 10 areas. We want to see rapid progress as far as we can, and it is important that we look at the legal and financial barriers that need to be overcome, which is why we are piloting in the first instance. However, the direction of our intention beyond the pilots is very clear: to see a need for young people to be able to stay in foster placements well beyond the age of 18.

Lynda Waltho: There is already ample evidence, particularly from Northern Ireland, of how successful these schemes can be. Foster carers from Dudley whom I have met are looking for a roll-out even sooner and wondering why the pilots are necessary, because there is ample evidence to show that something similar to the "staying put" scheme works already.

Beverley Hughes: The scheme that my hon. Friend mentions is itself still relatively new and we are waiting to see the results, but as I said, the Government's intention is clear. I and my colleagues accept the argument that, at a time when most of our children leave home, on average, at the age of 24, it is very reasonable to expect that children who have come into care need to stay in their placements beyond 18. How quickly we can go will depend on the pilots and on resources, but that is our direction of travel.
	The Bill seeks to improve stability in every aspect of a child's care. Clause 9 will make sure that local authorities pay greater attention to the educational impact of care placement decisions. We will use regulations to prevent any upheavals in years 10 and 11, when children need to focus all their attention on GCSEs, unless there are exceptional circumstances for the child. We also know that children placed out of their local authority area often do less well than those placed closer to home, so clause 9 will also restrict out-of-authority placements, subject, again, to the best interests of the child. Clause 10 will require local authorities to commission, plan and provide sufficient placements in their area. In addition and as I mentioned, this morning my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced the areas for the "staying put" pilots, which will allow young people to stay on beyond 18, with the agreement of all concerned.
	Of course, the best way to improve stability is by preventing children from going into care in the first place. Children have told us that, when they cannot stay with their parents, they want to be cared for by family and friends wherever possible. The Bill therefore requires local authorities to give preference to placements with relatives where that is in the child's best interests, and to give support to family carers. Clause 24 enables authorities to exercise wider discretion over cash payments to those caring for children in need. Clauses 36 to 38 remove some of the barriers for kinship carers applying for residence and special guardianship orders, and extend residence orders until the child reaches 18, rather than the present age of 16.

Mark Williams: Does the Secretary of State see this provision, which I very much welcome, as a way of alleviating some of the legitimate concerns that Members throughout the House have had regarding grandparents in a position of care?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, and that is true of all those provisions, including the ones I mentioned on cash payments and giving preferences for placements. During the consultation I talked to many grandparents, and I am aware, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless is, of heart-rending stories that people told of how matters were made really difficult by the current arrangements in many local authorities. We want to make sure that such things do not happen, because if children can live with grandparents and that is in their interests, that is by far the best place for them to be. We want to make sure that practice changes in this regard.
	Clause 25 gives statutory underpinning to short breaks for disabled children being developed over the next three years through the £359 million "aiming high for disabled children" programme.
	Finally, alongside improving the experience of those in care, we must also raise their aspirations and those of everyone caring for them. Schools must understand the unique learning needs of children in care and have the capacity to help them fulfil their potential—whatever their starting point. Clause 20 will make sure that there is a designated teacher in every school to give children in care the encouragement and personal support they need to realise their talents. Clause 17 will require local authorities to make arrangements for an independent, trained volunteer to be appointed to visit any looked-after child if it is in their interests. As I said earlier, we want more looked-after children to set their hearts on going to university, and to achieve that ambition. We know that financial barriers can also be a deterrent, so clause 21 will make a bursary available, of a minimum of £2,000, for every child in care who goes to university.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Lady said "finally", but she has not yet mentioned clause 2, which deals with adoption. Using this Bill, is there anything that we can do to ensure that children are not denied a stable and loving family because of political correctness getting in the way—to ensure that potential parents are not denied children because of factors such as obesity, age, being of the wrong race or even being too posh?

Beverley Hughes: I am struggling to understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, because clause 2 is in the set of clauses dealing with social work practices. If he would like to speak to me afterwards or write to me about the matter, I shall do what I can to clarify his particular concern.

Bob Spink: I thought that the clause deals with the functions of the adoption agency and the responsibility of the county councils in that respect.

Beverley Hughes: The local authority's functions in relation to adoption are excluded from the functions that social work practices will have; that is the reference contained in the clause, and it is very specific.
	To return to the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me about going to universities, I can tell him that for young people who are in, or who want to return to, education or training, clauses 22 and 23 extend the existing duty to appoint a personal adviser for young people up to the age of 25.

David Drew: Does the Foyer movement have a role to play in this, because, in a sense, it has worked as a bridge for young people who may not have been in care but who obviously find themselves in difficult circumstances? The movement has worked closely on an individual level with those young people, and its successes are often there for us to see when young people go on to university. Will that be enhanced by the Bill?

Beverley Hughes: I am great supporter of the Foyer movement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it makes a great contribution, mostly in preventing certain young people from having to be taken into care and accommodated by local authorities and in providing young people who are leaving care with a supported situation that can help them move to independence.
	We owe it to children in care to do everything possible to overcome their difficulties, to help them on the road to health, happiness and success, and to enable them to have a good childhood and a promising future. The measures in the Bill, together with those in the White Paper, can transform the experience and the prospects for children in care, now and in the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Tim Loughton: We certainly welcome the Bill. This is another year and another children's Bill, and, as with previous such legislation aimed at protecting vulnerable children, we will support it. This latest and long-awaited Bill deals with probably the most vulnerable group of children and young people in the UK—those in the care system. As the Minister has rightly said, it has been a scandal for too long, and remains so, that the treatment of, and outcomes for, children in the care system are woefully poor. Those children have been the victims of systemic neglect and of an institutionalised paucity of expectations for too many years, and it is vital that the Bill marks a major turning point in reversing that.
	I welcome what the Minister has said about the change of culture that is required, and I share her praise for social workers and foster carers, many of whom have lobbied us today about their vital and dedicated work. Some 61,000 children are in care in England and Wales, 42 per cent. of whom will return to their families within six months. However, we should not forget the estimated 350,000 adults who have spent part or all of their childhood in foster or residential care in this country. For many of them, the experience will become a generational legacy, as their own children end up in the care system, which happens all too often.
	We have heard about the scandal of outcomes for children in the care system in areas such as education. Despite the public service agreement targets, the priority action toolkits for key stage 4 looked-after children, the Education Protects programme, life chances funds and so on, the achievement of children in the care system on basic measures such as the achievement of five good GCSEs is still too poor. Worse still—the Minister alluded to this—the gap between children in the care system and mainstream children has widened over the past few years. All standards have gone up, as measured by GCSE achievement, but the gap in achievement between those who are and those who are not in the care system has widened. Furthermore, the increase in achievement has not been nearly as fast for those in the care system as for all children, which is deeply worrying. In addition, children in the care system are more than 10 times more likely to be excluded from school. Some 33 per cent. of them end up not in education, employment or training; just 2 per cent. of them go on to university; and 27 per cent. of them have statements for special educational needs compared with just 3 per cent. of all children.
	The same thing is happening in the justice system. Some 25 per cent. of people in prisons came through the care system, and the figure is anything up to half of those in youth offender institutes. Such children are four times more likely to smoke, drink under age and take drugs, and last year, 9.5 per cent. of over-10s in the care system were cautioned for or convicted of an offence. Not doing something more urgently about this situation is a false economy, because by the age of 19 a persistent offender will have cost £164,000 every year. That figure includes the cost to the victim, the court costs, the cost of prison and benefits and the cost to social services, which is an enormous cost not only to society but, most importantly, to the individual involved.
	We must also consider teenage pregnancy rates—one in four women leaving care is either pregnant or already a mother—and health statistics. Children in the care system are more than five times more likely than children in general to have a diagnosable mental illness, and many still do not receive the health checks that they are supposed to receive within the first 14 days of coming into the care system. Some two thirds of those children will have at least one physical health complaint. Perhaps the most tragic and disturbing statistic is that last year no fewer than 100 children in the care system died, which was an increase on the figure of 95 in 2004. We often talk about children who are killed at the hands of their carers or parents—the relevant figure is about one or two a week—but more children are dying within the care system for a host of reasons.
	The system is there to protect those children from the ravages of deprivation and health inequalities, so those figures are deeply disturbing. The Bill is desperately required and very welcome, but there is an urgent need to translate its good intentions and good directions into actions and results. We will do everything possible to speed the Bill's implementation. It has enjoyed close and positive scrutiny and improvement in the other House. I pay tribute to Lord Adonis, who has great personal experience of children in care, to my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton, who has great expertise in and dedication to this area, and to many other Lords who brought about constructive improvements to the original Bill. They, like the Minister, are all too aware of the challenges that we all face in helping children in the care system, because the effects of failure will impact on the whole of society and are not restricted to the cost of more than £2 billion a year of children in the looked-after system.
	We welcome much of the Bill, such as, for example, the rewriting of clauses 7 to 10, particularly in respect of the mechanics of placement and the preference for placement with extended family members, which should be, but is not, happening already. We also welcome the references to proximity placement, which has been discussed since Sir William Utting's report in 1997 suggested a 20-mile radius cap. Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated placements ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent. in Denmark, for example.
	We need to maintain continuity of school and education. The poor outcomes are not surprising, given that the social exclusion unit reported that 29 per cent. of children had undergone three or more educational placements during secondary school and that 25 per cent. of children had been in six or more care placements during the same period. We also support the Bill's hierarchy of kinship care placements locally to retain a familiar environment. We are talking about providing appropriate foster carers locally or, ultimately, in a residential home, where the appropriate care can be made available, especially for those with complex needs.
	We recognise that residential children's homes, which look after about 6,500 children at the moment—they tend to look after older children—have a place. They may be more appropriate as the first port of call, but the average cost of some £2,100 a week in those residential homes is leading to some local authorities cutting placements, although those fees include contracting for psychiatric and other specialist services in many cases.
	We need to take on board the shortage of skilled foster carers as well. On any day in this country, 50,000 children are living with 43,000 different foster families. Just last month, local authorities said that they urgently need at least 5,250 more foster carers to come forward this year, with the worst shortages in Manchester and the north-west. That results in thousands of children being sent to residential homes or being forced to travel miles to temporary placements and siblings having to live apart from their brothers and sisters, according to the Fostering Network.
	We welcome the greater specifications for visiting children far away from home in the residential placement provisions contained in the Bill. We welcome all those measures, not least because many of them were included in the 2005 Conservative manifesto, "Action for Vulnerable Children".  [ Interruption. ] I am sure that hon. Members want to participate in the shared congratulations. As the Minister has rightly said, all of us have campaigned on those issues for many years. However, we must recognise that what counts is not just passing the Bill, but the effectiveness with which it is put into action, backed up by resources and implemented by professionals at the sharp end who are appropriately trained, appropriately motivated and free to get on with their jobs.
	This week, we remember yet again the death of Victoria Climbié more than eight years ago, because the social worker who was responsible for her welfare has had her appeal upheld by a tribunal, but how much have we actually learned post-Victoria Climbié? Is the whole system of children protection now in better shape to protect children from death and injury at the hands of parents or carers, or to give children the best second chance of a successful and stable upbringing when taken into care? If it is in better shape, why are so many children still dying before they can be taken into the care system or even after that? Is the system sufficiently flexible either in care or with the birth family?
	This is a good Bill. Lots of work has been done to improve it, but there are a number of areas where it can be made better and will stand a better chance of working in practice, and we will table amendments to that effect. I hope that the Government will continue to engage with us in a constructive manner, as they have in their lordships' House. In particular, we want an amendment that will put a welfare checklist at the forefront of the Bill. There are concerns that many of the measures in the Bill do not go far enough and that many local authorities will only do the minimum to comply, not least given the constraints on spending, because of all the other children protection requirements that the Government are rightly introducing, and the more thinly spread funding for children's centres, which are now competing for funding within children's services budgets.
	We suggest a checklist at the beginning of the Bill mirroring section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which forms the heart of that legislation and which remains an important benchmark today. For every case, the actions of the local authority or other agency that acts for looked-after children would be expected to measure up against a checklist of considerations designed to be in the best interests of individual children, and such bodies would be accountable for that.
	We will table an amendment to propose the post of a chief social worker. That measure was recommended by the Conservative party commission on social workers, which reported last October and which I chaired. Such a person would be the public face of social workers, akin to the chief medical officer or the chief veterinary officer. We have such an officer for animals, for goodness' sake, and we should have one for people who deal professionally with children as well. The officer would be directly responsible to the Secretary of State and advise on ways to promote the image and perceptions of social workers among the public and on how social workers can do a better job and be held accountable when that is not the case.
	Too often, the perception of a social worker is as someone whose first contact with a vulnerable family is the knock on the door to initiate proceedings for a child to be taken into care. They are caricatured as child catchers. Not only is that deeply demoralising and not in the interests of social workers, but it is certainly not in the interests of the children and vulnerable families with whom they work and with whom they need to establish a relationship of trust and empathy in difficult circumstances. Such a role is used in New Zealand, and I have had a long conversation with Marie Connolly, who is the chief social worker for New Zealand. There are signs that that post has done a lot of good for the perception and standing of social workers in that country.
	We revealed yesterday that one in five of the 76,000 social workers in this country have signed off work for 20 consecutive days or more in the past five years. That is not good for the profession, and it lies behind why we still have high vacancy rates. My local authority has vacancy rates of about 20 per cent. for child social workers, yet those people are absolutely integral to the success of child protection legislation and the Bill, and we need to do more to boost their position.
	We support the inclusion of new clause 7 in the Bill to extend the duties in respect of the welfare of children to the Border and Immigration Agency. That provision was proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Morris and passed in the House of Lords with a large majority against the Government, and we very much hope that the Government will not seek to remove it in Committee.
	We want more direction in the Bill. Wherever possible, and in accordance with the interests of the child, the default position should be that an extended family member is the priority for a placement. We want greater safeguards for children in care over the age of 16. As the Minister mentioned several times, it is absurd that the majority of children leave care at the age of 16 or 17, when they are facing most turbulence in their lives with exams at school, the possibility of getting a job and trying to sort out accommodation. Yet for our sons and daughters, with their birth family, that happens when they are at least 24. We look forward to a discussion with the Minister on that front. There has been some progress since the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, but 41 per cent. of children leave care by the age of 17.
	We need to give more focused, ongoing support. We need far tighter controls over multiple placements. We need greater specifications for the qualifications of responsible social workers who visit children placed out of the area, usually in children's homes—out of sight and out of mind in too many cases. That was supposed to happen already. Some of us took a delegation to see Lord Warner, the then Minister responsible, but it is still not happening in too many places. In my authority in West Sussex, it is estimated—it can only be an estimate—that more than 700 children have been placed in the care system by other authorities. That compares with 42 children placed by West Sussex out of county—in Kent, the figure is estimated to be 1,250. Yet the local children's service department, the local police, the local council or the local justice system must pick up the pieces when things go wrong. That notification should be happening; it is not happening, and it must happen in the interests of all those involved.
	Clear concerns have been expressed by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which produced a survey showing that 81 per cent. of looked-after children appearing in court in those areas where they were placed out of their home authority did so without the prior knowledge of the local youth offending teams. Again, that is an absolute travesty.
	We welcome the inclusion in the Bill of a designated teacher responsible for promoting the welfare of looked-after children. Again, that should be happening already—if it is not happening, it must happen, and the guidance must be followed. We also want a designated governor to oversee that teacher and ensure that the governing body is fully behind the new role, and we shall table amendments to that effect.
	We will table amendments stipulating that incentive payments cannot be paid to local authorities to increase adoption numbers, which is a perverse incentive that we cautioned against during the consideration of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. One has only to look at the extraordinary discrepancies between the number of adoption placements in certain authorities and the Minister's admission that those payments had been made to question why that perverse incentive still exists. In Committee, I will quote the Minister's written answers to my parliamentary questions, which show that those payments, which are not in the interests of children, have been made.
	We also want to give greater powers to foster carers, so that they can take on the role of as normal a parent as possible. We want them to have the authority, without having to refer back to the social worker, to say whether a child can have a sleepover with a mate from school or go on a school trip. At the moment, much of that must be delegated back to the social worker. We need foster carers, many of whom are long-term foster carers, to be able to play the role of the pushy parent—a figure whom those children lack and so desperately need in the place of a birth parent.
	We need to give foster carers greater powers by sending out a clear message from the Government to local authorities to back them. Similarly, we need safeguards to ensure that foster carers do not become the victims of vexatious allegations by difficult children. There needs to be a balance so that children are protected. As we heard from foster carers again today, too many vexatious complaints against them result in their being instantly suspended and their allowances' being suspended too. We need to get the balance right.
	In our amendments, we will return to the thorny subject of private fostering. It was mentioned and recommended by Sir William Utting in 1997 and by some of us in amendments to the Adoption and Children Act 2002. It was mentioned in my private Member's Bill in 2003 and again in 2004, when the Minister came up with a sunset clause that the Bill will extend and that we will try to abolish. Surely, now is the time at long last to implement a proper legal requirement for the registration of private foster placements, given that the voluntary scheme has yielded only a relatively small number of cases. Too many private fostering schemes go on at the moment without the knowledge of local authorities and without proper safeguards for vulnerable children, as we have seen in certain tragic cases over the past few years.
	We also want to see better safeguards on birth parents' passing on medical records for adopted children. Again, there are too many cases of children who have been through the care system falling foul of what turns out to be a congenital illness. If the medical records had been available from their birth parents, preventive action might have been taken.
	We also want to explore how we can get greater transparency in the family courts, which remains a serious bone of contention. We also want to see greater rights of sibling contact, if children cannot be placed together. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children survey showed that 40 per cent. of children and young people said that they did not have enough contact with siblings. That evidence was backed up by A National Voice and the Who Cares? Trust. Such contact should not merely be allowed by local authority, but facilitated and promoted. I am sure that many other considerations will come up in Committee and I greatly look forward to debating children's issues with the Minister again.
	Most of this is not rocket science. There are already many examples of good practice around the country. For example, a few months ago I opened the new Horizons education and achievement centre in Ealing. It is a fantastic institute manned by former care leavers who have been to university and come back and who now teach educational, computer and other skills to young people in the care system. It is no coincidence that 14 per cent. of children in care in Ealing now go on to university, which is substantially more than the national average.
	In Barnet, the authority has invested in a buddy system. Every child in the care system has a buddy who is an officer in the local authority, from the chief executive down. That officer looks out for them and asks the questions that a pushy parent would ask at a school parents evening or about health records. Barnet invested in its social work force some years ago. It invested to save, and it is now no coincidence that the vacancy rate for child social workers in Barnet is less than 4 per cent., which is one of the best in London.
	Other great examples of best practice include the Community Service Volunteers scheme—I think that the Minister has mentioned it. I declare an interest as a trustee of CSV. It has piloted the use of volunteer social workers in child protection in Bromley and Sunderland. The volunteers primarily support the parent with the stress of having their children on the register and the threat of their children being taken into care. They can establish more stability by helping parents to manage the heavy schedule of meetings with schools, social workers and health professionals, attending parenting classes and ensuring that children go to school or nursery, and they can help to organise a routine at home. When the approach was piloted in California, instances of child abuse fell by 80 per cent. The volunteers are viewed differently from social workers, who are metaphorically in uniform. They have a great role to play, and I hope that the legislation will allow the flexibility to promote similar schemes and the use of volunteers, whether through CSV or other organisations.
	Family support is key. As the Minister has said, we are talking about children and the care system, but we need to do an awful lot more to prevent children from entering the care system in the first place. The charity NCH, for example, has been running the Phoenix project, which I recently visited in Merton. The project works with families in crisis using a solution-focused therapy model of work. Support is offered for a period of three months, with all interventions regularly reviewed. When the work is completed, families are tracked after six months to see whether their progress has been maintained. The project consists of a rapid response team, an adolescent resource team, family group meetings and so on. It has found an enormous fall in the number of children who then go off the rails, thanks to the fact that those families have been kept together.
	Let me give a third example, which is another project by NCH in Fareham on intensive fostering. Intensive fostering has learned from the positive practice used in remand fostering of co-ordinating services around the young person. This tried and tested method has many proven benefits. Research by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering to evaluate the NCH's remand fostering scheme found that more than 70 per cent. of young people committed no offences during their placement despite persistently offending before and that all the young people were engaged in school, training or employment by the time that they left the placement. Intensive fostering has a great role to play, because it has been piloted and has been shown to work.
	Those are good schemes that are working, and we need the flexibility to promote more of them. Perhaps there is too great a focus on the child rather than on the problems undermining a family that might result in the loss of a child to the care system. We need to talk more about fostering families, rather than just fostering the child, and keeping families together wherever possible. We need greater flexibility and greater innovation.
	We must ensure that the work force is appropriately trained, motivated and free to get on with the job of looking after children at the sharp end. We need to end bureaucracy and the excessive aversion to risk that can culminate in perverse incentives to take more children into care rather than working preventively with families to keep them together. At the other end, the system hurries children aged over 16 out of the care system to free up social worker time and resources. That is likely to turn out to be a false economy as vulnerable young people slide back into the mire of the familiar problems that I described earlier.
	We also need to listen more and take note of children and young people. A report by the "What Makes the Difference?" project revealed that 40 per cent. of young people in care said that they rarely or never have a say in a placement, which is another great sign of weakness that we need to address and reverse.
	The Bill is a last chance for many in the care system whom we have failed for too long. Every two months' delay represents 1 per cent. of childhood with the child in the care system condemned to mediocrity and the likelihood of underachievement. That situation is simply not acceptable any more. It is an enormous waste to society as a whole, to us and, most of all, to the 61,000 children and young people in the care system for whom the failure to invest seriously in the problem has been a false economy for far too long.
	We should approach the Bill by asking ourselves whether the current system, or the proposals, would be good enough for our own children. If we cannot answer yes, we are not doing our job properly. For those reasons, we wish the Bill well and will engage positively with the Minister in Committee.

Hilary Armstrong: Before I start, I want to make it clear that I have a relationship with NCH that I have taken up again since I left government. I have been involved with the organisation for most of my life, although I took a more objective view, of course, while I was in government. I have been involved in the issue of children in care for many years and I trained as a family case worker many years ago, before several people who are taking part in the debate were born.
	I know that the Government have taken the issue of children in care very seriously, and have made a series of efforts to change the opportunities for such children. Indeed, they have significantly increased investment; I am surprised that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) did not acknowledge that. The reality is that significantly more investment has been made, both directly in the care system and in a series of other ways—through the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) initiated early on in our time in office on the Quality Protects programme, through investment in communities, through programmes such as Sure Start, through increasing support for parents and through the family intervention projects that the Government have supported.
	However, it must be said that we are still not content with the results. That is why the Bill is particularly well timed. It allows us to take account of what has already been done, but it also says to all involved in the care system, "Have another look, because despite increased investment and increased opportunities, things are not working sufficiently well for the most vulnerable children in our society."
	Two years ago, I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to have another look at social exclusion. One of the issues that he asked me to consider was the care system. He was particularly arrested by the poor educational outcomes. For me, it was a good opportunity to look again at what we could do really to move things on again. There are lots of points that I could make, but many other Members want to speak in this relatively short debate, so I will confine my comments to some of the critical issues, although other issues raised by Members, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, are very important, too.
	In particular, I looked at why we were not getting the results that other systems were getting, although we spent more per head on children in care than others did. There are two or three points to raise. The first is early intervention and preventive work. The Government are now much more clearly focused and targeted on that. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard me say many times, early intervention work has to be clearly focused and to systematically pick up the most disadvantaged children and families, and it must be rigorous. There are a number of programmes doing such work now. I am delighted that last week, the Government increased the number of areas that can benefit from nurse-family partnerships to 90, from the 10 that were initiated last year. That is proving to be the most effective programme worldwide, not only according to the cost-benefit analysis, but in terms of its impact on the most vulnerable children and their chance to have opportunities when they grow up and to not face the level of disadvantage that too many children do.
	Generally, we have to be much more rigorous in picking up on the most vulnerable. That is a challenge to several people in the House who object to data sharing. I believe that it should be a criminal offence not to share data concerning the most vulnerable, because not to share those data is to say, "We think your individual liberties are more important than your opportunity to prosper and succeed." The two things get confused for the very young child. My right hon. Friend the Minister has problems ensuring decent data sharing. When we go to schools, teachers say, "We know which children will have difficulties as soon as they first come in," yet the data are not systematically and rigorously shared in a way that would ensure good intervention right from the beginning. Hon. Members can tell that I feel passionate about the issue; I will move on.
	There are also preventive services to consider. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned NCH's work on family intervention. The Government have taken hold of, and extended, NCH and other projects. There will now be about 50 family intervention projects across the country. There are other ways in which we should intervene at the very earliest stage to give a family support, so that children do not end up having to be placed in care, for whatever reason. There are good programmes that we know work, and we have to get on with them in every area of the country. NCH makes a powerful point about children on the edge of care in its briefing for Members: good, preventive services involving the whole family can make a huge difference and can help to ensure that children do not end up in the care system.
	In my second look at children in care, I became convinced that work-force issues are another area in which we have not got things right, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is chairing a working party on the subject. I encourage him to be ambitious. Members present on both sides of the Chamber have considered the example of the social pedagogy model in Europe. Using that model would mean ensuring much better, longer training for people who work with our children, but I find it perverse that we continue to accept that sometimes the least qualified and trained people are those who work with the most vulnerable. As a result, they frequently do not take hold of a situation because they are fearful of it, and because they know that they do not have the quality, reserves, training or strategies to deal with whatever problem comes up.
	When there is a problem that, in this country, would frequently mean someone calling the police, in Denmark, Germany and Finland, the key worker deals with the problem. Obviously, if it is a really serious problem, the police have to be called in, but frequently it is not, and the worker deals with it. I went to two or three children's homes in Germany where the worker would automatically do an hour's work with the young person when they came in from school, to make sure that the day was understood and that the young person knew what would happen the next day, and to support the young person in doing their homework. That was not considered anything special. An educational worker was not brought in to do that work; the child's key worker—the person who worked with them most consistently—did it automatically. I know that the Government are looking at the social pedagogy model, and I encourage them to be brave, to start pilots that involve social pedagogues, and to monitor the effects.
	A point that struck me powerfully and that has made me stop and think a great deal is the relationship with the family once a young person is in care. In this country, there is the odd example of good work in that regard, but that good work is not nearly sufficiently systematic, and does not nearly take place often enough. Too many of the young people who have been or who are in care whom I meet are frustrated that they have so little contact with their natural family. I found that out way back when I was a social worker. Even if the relationship with the family has been destructive—even if it has been really poor—young people none the less want to know about their family. They want to know how to deal with them. They want to know who their mother and father are. They want contact. Too often, we say that that is too difficult and that they would be better off without it, or we just do not do the hard work to make sure that they are placed somewhere where that will be easy.
	When I was in Germany and Denmark, it was not thought out of the ordinary if the parents came for breakfast or lunch, or visited in the evening. That was the norm, and the work force saw their role as negotiating the space between the child and the family. When the child leaves care, even if there has not been any contact, they go into environments that are not controlled for them. They go into a different environment, and many children seek to re-establish contact with their family, and they experience a series of different emotions, including anger, frustration and concern.

Tim Loughton: I am following very closely what the right hon. Lady is saying. I visited that children's home in Copenhagen shortly after she did. Is not the point, which she rightly makes, that in this country, things are black and white: someone is in the care system, or they are with their birth family? In homes in Denmark where children may go back to their birth parents or to a member of their extended family, or have them over for dinner during the week, there is far greater flexibility: there is a middle way. It is that flexibility that we lack in this country, and I hope that the Bill will go some way towards bringing it about.

Hilary Armstrong: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is about a bit more than flexibility. It is about the quality of the work force and whether they can handle that relationship. It is about whether they are confident about negotiating that space. Our legislation says that they are in loco parentis, which means that they try to be the parent, but frequently that is not what is required. It may be required for some youngsters, so it should be available, but the next stage is personalisation, to recognise much more effectively what the individual child needs and what is the right response to them.

Julie Morgan: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying, and she makes an important point. Like me, she may have seen examples of foster parents in this country who have managed work with the child and their natural parents. They are a bridge, and use the negotiating skills that she described. Does she agree that we should move forward with that model, and provide help to develop the skills of families in their own homes? I am sure that she will agree that foster parents can do that.

Hilary Armstrong: I absolutely agree, and I believe that it is possible. When it works, it is empowering for foster parents, the children and the natural parents. It is counter-intuitive for most people, but we have to be brave on behalf of those children and young people, who do not get a good deal from us.

David Kidney: As well as foster carers having the role on which my right hon. Friend has just agreed, does she accept that there is no reason why residential care staff should not have the same role, too, and that residential care homes ought to become resource centres for such work?

Hilary Armstrong: I certainly agree with that, and I sometimes think that we have denigrated residential care to damaging effect, because for some children it is the right experience. Wherever they are placed, the issue of where they come from and how it affects how they see themselves and how they behave in the world is the critical thing with which we have to deal. They must be able to get the confidence to know who they are, and be able to deal with that, so that they can deal with the rest of the world.
	Finally—and this is probably controversial—it is too easy for local authorities just to let children go. I am pleased with what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the "staying put" pilots, but we have to be more ambitious in future, and recognise that local authorities must take responsibility for a long time. They should not just agree that someone should keep a relationship with their foster parents, but should be legally charged if the child ends up in custody, for example. There should be incentives for local authorities to make sure that the child keeps out of custody. We should also think about rewarding them if the child reaches university or obtains a qualification that gives them the licence to work. We must be much more ambitious in how we look at local authorities' responsibility for children in care, so that they take responsibility for what actually happens to those children, instead of taking the view that they just have them for a period and do what is necessary, rather than regarding their responsibility as an ambition to transform opportunities for that child. That is where I want to get to—it is ambitious—but I know that we are going the right way.

Annette Brooke: We would very much like to welcome the Bill, but obviously we are sad that it has been introduced against the background of extremely poor outcomes for our most vulnerable children for far too long. Thirteen per cent. of young people looked after for at least a year achieve five A to C GCSEs, against 62 per cent. of all children. Twenty-seven per cent. of the prison population was taken into care as children, as opposed to 2 per cent. of the general population. Children in, and leaving, care are at high risk of pregnancy—almost half of care leavers are mothers within 18 to 24 months of leaving care and, saddest of all, the children of children who have been in care are likely to be taken into care themselves.
	However, there are many examples of good work and practice, and we need to make sure that there is much better access to good practice across the board. Our shared objectives today—and I believe that there will be a great deal of cross-party work on and support for the Bill—are about improving the life chances of a large number of young people. At any point in time, there are about 60,000 children in the care system. Some children are fostered on a short-term basis and can return to their families. Others go on to be adopted, and others are fostered on a long-term basis. It is particularly striking that 45 per cent. of children who enter care are adolescents. They are especially vulnerable, and they are not in the care system for long before being faced with the challenge of GCSEs.
	I sincerely believe that we must be relentless in our ambitions for looked-after children, but we must be prepared to give support over a much longer period than has previously been the case in all local authorities. I am concerned, too, that a young person in our country is rarely taken into care after the age of 15. I hope that decisions are driven by what is best for the young person and their wishes, and not by local authority concerns about the cost of providing housing and other services.
	In 2005-06, authorities in England spent a net total of £2.05 billion on looked-after children, compared with just £687 million on family support services—a ratio of 3:1. In a recent answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), the Minister provided figures that showed great variations in the number of children taken into care per 10,000 of the population under 18. For example, figures for 2006-07 show that Kirklees had six such children; Merton, four; and Kent, four. However, on the same basis, other authorities had figures as high as 24. The boroughs that I cited with the lower figures have a spending ratio nearer to 2:1. We must conclude that, at the very least, family support is one important factor in the equation.
	NCH tells us that the annual cost of a mid-range, intensive family support service to prevent admission to care is just over £300,000, which provides support for 60 young people and their families. An average success rate of 80 per cent. means that accommodation is avoided for 48 of those young people. Compared with the average cost of foster care or a children's home placement, it represents a large monetary saving. However, the greatest savings must be in respect of the value of the services to the people, which enables a child to remain with their own family and community, and in the contribution to long-term development and well-being.
	Preventive family support services are all-important, as is ongoing support for vulnerable families and, indeed, support within the foster family, if that route is judged to be in the child's best interest. I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), who seemed to be almost describing a bridge between the family and the care placement—whatever that would be. It is quite an exciting idea, which could be backed up by the family support measures that are, basically, in place in some areas. My challenge to the Minister is in respect of what can be done to spread further the good practice on early intervention, which, according to the statistics, is clearly so lacking in many places.
	In previous debates about children and young people, I have often felt and said that every child matters except young asylum seekers and children in custody. As the Bill has progressed through the other place, there have been welcome moves to address a few of the issues. I welcome new clause 7, which should have been included in section 11 of the Children Act 2004 when it was debated. The Border and Immigration Agency should be subject to the duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who have been trafficked or who are seeking asylum, placing an equal duty on all services that come into contact with children, and further steps could be taken—for example, with the appointment of a guardian for every unaccompanied child in the asylum process.
	As has already been said, looked-after children and care leavers are over-represented in the criminal justice system. About 40 to 49 per cent. of children and young people in custody have been in local authority care at some point, and 18 per cent. are still subject to care orders. In the other place, the Government provided some welcome assurances about the new duty that will be placed on local authorities to visit every child whom it looks after, and about ensuring that they provide improved continuity of care for those entering or leaving custody. That is such an important issue that I hope the Minister will today reassure us about monitoring and about any future guidance and regulations. There is a much wider debate to be had about the numbers of children in custody, about deaths while in custody and much more, but I shall refrain from entering on that today.
	When looking at the whole care system, a good starting point is always the views of the young people themselves. I shall touch on some of the key messages from children which emerged from the 2006 report "Children's Views on Standards" by Dr. Roger Morgan, the children's rights director. One of the first messages was:
	"Treat each child as an individual, not as a member of a group."
	Our general discussions have already touched on that point, but it was brought out very succinctly by a young person. Another message was:
	"Allow us to have a real say in decisions affecting us".
	A further message was:
	"Improve asking and listening to children's views, wishes and worries - and feed back to us what you do with what we tell you".
	We in this country are pretty bad at giving feedback, particularly when children have made a request. Another message was:
	"The three biggest wishes about social workers are that they should help with personal problems, that they should get you practical help when you need it, and that they should always be there to listen to you."
	One of the most important things that we must obtain from the Bill is the assurance for every child in care that there will always be somebody who is there to listen. That is the key relationship with the child. It might be at any time of the day, as we know from our family experience.

Mark Williams: Does my hon. Friend also see that role in a school context, to be undertaken by the designated member of staff? When we think of schools, we think about the undeniable need to raise expectations regarding academic achievement, but that pastoral role—that holistic approach—should also be developed by the designated teacher. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Annette Brooke: I do agree. That approach has been missing in many schools despite their having had guidance that there should be a designated teacher. We know that, in reality, it has not happened. Of course, the issue is not just about the academic side; underpinning that side is good pastoral care and appropriate care. We never know who the child or young person will find as their best confidant, but it is important to ensure that they find them.
	Many aspects of the Bill attempt to address the issues that children and young people have raised, and I welcome the strengthening of the independent reviewing officer's role. However, more may need to be done about the independent aspect and the extension, so that more looked-after children have independent visitors. Both proposals aim to further the interests of children, but in addition independent advocacy is crucial because it ensures that the child's voice and rights are represented by a professional outside the system.
	Early-day motion 1126, tabled by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), has the support of 144 Members. Recently, the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families concluded:
	"It is clear from all the evidence that a truly independent voice is needed for all looked-after children to ensure their needs and wishes are properly considered and acted upon in the care process."

Lynda Waltho: I welcome all that the hon. Lady has said, but does she agree that the extension of looked-after status to disabled children is a trick that may have been missed? They are often in placements for 52 weeks a year. On the Children, Schools and Families Committee, we have both heard of stories in which the most vulnerable of vulnerable children do not receive their visits or anything until it is far too late.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I shall certainly come on to that point, but at this stage I shall just say that independent advocacy is particularly important for those severely disabled children who may be forced by the severity of their condition to remain in a residential placement for most of the year. It is very important that their voice is heard, and in respect of children with extreme needs I can see that happening only when they have somebody who can work closely with them and almost tune in to how they feel about certain issues. That independent advocacy is vital, particularly when such children are far away from home.
	As far back as 1997, Sir William Utting, in his report "People Like Us", concluded that looked-after children needed independent advocacy as a source of protection and as a means of making their voices heard within an otherwise closed system. Most importantly, children and young people say that they want advocacy. A National Voice indicated that up to 90 per cent. of children it surveyed held that view. There are two aspects: the expression of a child's views by those responsible for the outcome; and the representation of a child's view and their rights by a professional advocate. Those are two very different things, and the role of the independent review officer never entirely covers both aspects. I would firmly come down on the side of those who have long argued for a statutory right to independent advocacy for looked-after children when significant decisions are being made in their lives. It is sometimes suggested that with all these adults in a child's life, an advocate would be just one more, but I think it would help them to make sense of the roles of all those adults.
	We have heard a lot about the work force, and of course social workers are absolutely key to the futures of looked-after children, who want a stable relationship with their social worker and find it very disruptive when there is a churn of temporary social workers in all the areas where there are shortages. The right training for social workers is absolutely vital.
	I have some reservations about the proposal for independent social care practices. We do not know whether that will produce the outcomes that might be achieved—we do not have evidence one way or the other. I can therefore see the point of having pilots, but we are in danger of having more and more pilots with long periods before evaluation. In this case, I wonder whether we will get more social workers or end up with the displacement of social workers. As the Select Committee said, the pilots need to fill the evidence gap on social work practices. It is vital that they are properly evaluated and are not rolled out unless there is clear evidence that they will provide essential continuity and stability for looked-after children. The evaluation must also take account of any knock-on effects on our local authorities in terms of whether there has been any diminishing of services, perhaps because of an overall shortage of social workers. The jury is out on that.
	We saw some welcome policy evolution in the other place. We started with the commendable objective that we wanted to have as many children placed within their own local authority as possible, but overlooked the fact that some children need to access highly specialised provision that will not be in the immediate area. We have reached a point where local authorities have a duty to secure a sufficient and diverse provision of accommodation for looked-after children in their area, to make decisions that are in the best interests of the child when there are out-of-area placements, to take on board the issue of schooling, particularly in the critical years 10 and 11, and to look on kinship as a preference when there is consideration of a child perhaps being moved away from its immediate birth family. I have long been committed to the idea that we should expand the use of kinship care, which is very patchy across the whole country. We need to be clear about what financial payments are made in those circumstances. I am sure that we have all had visits to our surgeries from grandparents who are struggling to cope because there has not been the necessary funding.

Mark Williams: Does my hon. Friend fear that some local authorities have hidden behind the term "exceptional circumstances" in the existing legislation in respect of their willingness to award grants to grandparents and others?

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I understand the point that we do not want people doing this just for money; it has to be more than that. On the other hand, I hope we can make progress with regard to situations in which hardship is created or where it truly would be the solution that was in the best interests of the child.
	The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) intervened on me about looked-after status for disabled children in long-term residential care. The situation strikes me as very odd. I have heard from parents whose children go into short-term respite care and are upset because that means that they have to have looked-after status. It is an interesting anomaly that we need to consider carefully in Committee. It is clear that in relation to long-term residential care there would be several benefits in having looked-after status—an allocated social worker, a care plan, a contact plan, a health assessment and health plan, and so on.
	We have heard about the excellent work that is carried out by foster carers. I, too, had the great pleasure of meeting many foster carers this afternoon, and I can only praise them for the work that they take on. It is important to provide the necessary training and to professionalise their work. In particular, I would like to see more use of intensive fostering, which is used in Scandinavian countries and keeps children out of custody. That is important. We need to give more support to foster carers. An issue that was particularly raised with us today is that 30 per cent. of foster carers are faced with allegations at some time or another, and there is the peculiar situation whereby they appear to be presumed guilty right from the word go, entirely contrary to normal practice in this country. It is important that fees should continue to be paid. We heard about examples where once allegations have been made, even if found to be unfounded, not only are fees stopped but those allegations appear on a criminal record. That can affect foster carers' futures. A full reason should at least be given of why the allegations were found to be unfounded. This is probably not directly relevant to the Bill, but I want to place on record the fact that it needs to be examined.
	I emphasise the need to give more powers to foster carers, particularly those who are performing the parental role. When I was a chairman of education services in 1997, looked-after children would come to tell us how difficult it was to get permission for a sleepover. We have got through that problem, but now there are others whereby foster carers do not have the power to give consent for normal children's and school activities. Action must be taken on that.
	I was pleased to hear the Minister announce that one of the pilots is to be in Dorset, so I will be able to look at it first hand. I share others' disappointment and frustration in the sense that we all think this is intrinsically a good idea and want to get on with it. I hope that the Minister will agree that as information evolves and the system is seen to be working, the pilots can be rolled out rather more quickly than might be the case if we were to wait three years for the evaluation.
	I welcome the bursary that is offered to support looked-after young people at university, but there should be parity with further education and training. We want young people to take whichever route is the most suitable for them, and they are liable to be disadvantaged at this age.
	On many occasions I have discussed the provision of therapeutic services for all abused children. In 2006, the then Department for Education and Skills said that of 60,000 children in care, 63 per cent. were in care because they had experienced some form of abuse or neglect. The long-term consequences of child sexual abuse include anxiety and depression, anger and guilt, difficulties functioning at school, poor self-image and difficulties with personal relationships and parenting. Adults who are being treated for mental health problems often identify childhood abuse as an influence. Research shows that 25 to 40 per cent. of all alleged sexual abuse involves young perpetrators, and the majority of those children and young people have been or are being sexually, physically or emotionally abused themselves. Therapy at an early stage could help to reduce the scale of the problems over time by breaking the cycle.
	Therapy can transform children's lives, but provision is inadequate and patchy across the country. As a consequence of my long-term mission in this area, I support the need to address disproportionately poor health outcomes more generally. I welcome the Government's proposals to make guidance statutory for PCTs as well as local authorities, but I certainly want to explore in Committee how we can better address the significant physical, emotional and mental health needs of looked-after children. As far as their health is concerned, it is important to ensure that we have truly joined-up working at national and local level.
	I shall also comment briefly on private fostering. In the Committee considering the Children Act 2004, I proposed a compulsory registration scheme for private fosterers. The then children's Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), said in defence of the notification scheme:
	"The clause is in the Bill because we want to strengthen the scheme and give it one last chance to work...Secondly, we will require local authorities to monitor the operation of the scheme far more closely, and to provide information for us on how many registrations they achieve each year."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 288-89.]
	The figures so far show that there were 730 notifications in 2005, 980 in 2006 and 1,250 in 2007, against a background of an estimated 10,000 children being privately fostered. How can children be adequately protected and safeguarded if we do not know the conditions in which they are looked after? It cannot be right for the Government to say, "We'll have another three years, and we're going to do better this time." We need to know how the Government are going to do better in the next three years.
	In reading the report of the debate in the other place, I felt that the noble Lord Adonis was always ready to say, "That's already in regulations. That's covered under this legislation. That's already in guidance." I am sure that that is absolutely true; so much should be happening to help looked-after children, but the fact is that it is not. The designated teacher is a good example: a provision was in the guidance, but surveys show that it was not put into practice. Time is short, and we must make the legislation work. I hope that we can all work together sensibly and seriously on this serious and important Bill.

Edward Timpson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make what is my maiden speech.
	I wish to speak briefly on the Bill before the House, but before doing so, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor. For 34 years, Gwyneth Dunwoody served Crewe, from 1974 until 1983, and thereafter Crewe and Nantwich, with unwavering dedication and distinction. The longest-serving female Member of Parliament, Gwyneth Dunwoody was not only a truly great parliamentarian, but a uniquely formidable fighter. She stood up and fought for all her constituents and was steadfast in her belief in, and defence of, the independence of this House.
	Gwyneth Dunwoody had a clear sense of what an MP is for and never wavered from her core beliefs. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will agree that her enduring spirit, acerbic wit and unstinting passion for the Parliament and the people she served will for ever remain within the fabric of this House. We all owe her a great debt. As it is a privilege and honour to follow in her footsteps, so it is a privilege and honour to represent the good people of Crewe and Nantwich. I make known my gratitude to them for sending me here and I hope that I can repay their trust.
	In the normal course of events, I would now seize the opportunity to take the House on a journey across my constituency. However, the events of my election were anything but normal. Many, if not all, hon. Members have already had the great pleasure of having visited Crewe and Nantwich in the last six weeks—most, I trust, of their own volition. Some Members had the undoubted advantage of moving into my constituency for the duration of the by-election, a worthy experience that I am sure will remain with them. Nevertheless, I ask the House to allow me a few moments to remind them of its many and varied qualities. What I hope they found was a place blessed with a strong and proud community and a deep and diverse heritage, together with people of frank honesty and open decency, for certainly that is true.
	Known as the gateway to the north-west, Crewe and Nantwich straddles urban and rural communities that, together, contain a rich range of human activity and life. Lying in the heart of south Cheshire, Crewe remains synonymous with the birth and rise of the railways through the 19th and early 20th centuries, and indeed it was down to that industry that the town was born. Its influence in the town and the prosperity that came with it can be seen in the impressive array of Victorian buildings and open spaces. I recall my grandmother reminiscing to me about the tea dances she attended in the 1930s at the Crewe Arms hotel, the world's first railway hotel built in 1838. Crewe continues to play an active and central part in the railway industry today.
	In recent years, Crewe has built upon its manufacturing base with a strong service industry that has attracted national and international investment from public and private sectors alike. In 1986, Crewe business park became the UK's first "green" business park, and developments such as the Crewe Gates industrial estate have encouraged new business and industries to move into the town. Crewe has a growing sense of enterprise that has enormous untapped potential. Further regeneration in and around the town centre can only help to set that potential free. My predecessor worked tirelessly towards her vision of Crewe becoming a university town. With substantial investment in place for many of the further and higher education institutions located in the town, that vision is closer to becoming a reality.
	Nantwich is a picturesque market town that predates the Norman conquest. Those born within the town's boundaries are affectionately known as "dabbers", and there are many old wives' tales that purport to explain the origin of the term. Sitting on the banks of the River Weaver, Nantwich began as a salt town that gave way to a leather then clothing industry. Today, Nantwich boasts a thriving tourist trade. Visitors to Nantwich are attracted by the magnificent market square, dominated by the 14th century parish church of St. Mary's, christened the cathedral of south Cheshire, and surrounded by leaning half-timbered black and white Tudor architecture.
	The English civil war reached one of its turning points at the battle of Nantwich in 1644, when the parliamentarians held back the royalists. While I have every respect for the primacy of this Chamber, I am glad that that siege is only re-enacted every year on what is known as Holly Holy day.
	The success of Cheshire cheese-making is celebrated annually at the Nantwich international cheese show. That is, in part, a product of the rolling open Cheshire countryside in my constituency, which is home to a dairy industry that is now, sadly, struggling. In the past seven years, more than 50 dairy farms in my constituency have closed and our farming community is in a desperate plight. The peppering of rural villages does what it can to support the rural economy, but these are parlous times.
	Across Crewe and Nantwich, the role played by charities and volunteer groups has never been more important. My contact with young and old alike in organisations such as Crewe YMCA and Cheshire Age Concern has demonstrated to me the difference that they can make.
	The people of Crewe and Nantwich have much to be proud of and I, as their Member of Parliament, shall work hard to stand up for each and every one of them. That includes those whose needs and vulnerability are among the most acute—children in care.
	Having spent the past 25 years living with, and helping care for, many foster children, and the past decade working in the care system, I know only too well the fundamental importance of putting children first and giving them the childhood that they deserve. I, too, welcome the Bill and support its efforts to improve outcomes for children in care. It contains many praiseworthy objectives: improving stability of placement; education and support for longer; promoting early intervention, and increasing family support. However, we must ask ourselves: does it hit the spot and does it go far enough?
	For too long, most social workers have started out on their career hoping to make a difference to the lives of disadvantaged children, but have finished up frustrated by risk assessments, box-ticking and targets, so that, eventually, their objective is to protect their department, not the children whom they are there to help. The time spent by social workers dealing face to face with the children whom they are there to protect, nurture and support is less than 5 per cent. of their working day. I believe vehemently in empowering professionals to do what they do best—their job. I hope that the Bill will go some way towards giving social workers the trust and freedom that they need to treat each child as a special case.
	I welcome clause 20 and the statutory requirement that it introduces, but I would add this. Every designated teacher with responsibility for promoting the educational achievement of children in care registered at their school requires, in my view, additional training to ensure that each child's specific and specialised needs are properly met and that they are afforded the opportunity to flourish rather than fail. A case in point is the growing number of children in care who are affected by attachment disorder as opposed to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Teachers will need additional training to understand that difference and how to respond effectively.
	I also believe that the Government need to increase the number of registered foster carers as a priority. A more embracing and welcoming recruitment programme, which provides better guidance and less bureaucracy, will, I am sure, stimulate more interest and commitment to a noble, rewarding, and, at times, undervalued role.
	During the by-election campaign, I had the unexpected but great fortune to cross paths with the mother of three children fostered by my family some years ago. They are, of course, now my constituents, and, I am pleased to say, thriving as a family and as individuals. They are testament to how our care system can work. Sadly, we have been failing so many other children in care for too long. I trust that the Bill will be a worthy, albeit overdue, step towards making our children really matter.
	I am grateful to the House for its indulgence. I will continue to champion this and all other causes that affect the people of Crewe and Nantwich—after all, that is my duty.

Joan Humble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) on his speech. I especially applaud him for his kind words about his predecessor, who was a perfectly splendid Member of Parliament and a role model for us all. I recognise his description of his constituency, having spent many an hour there recently and meeting many interesting people.
	Perhaps most important, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Bill. He has recognised its importance for vulnerable people, whom we all represent, and the need for us to move forward. Like him, I welcome the Bill. It makes a clear commitment to encouraging aspirations among young people in care and reducing the gap in outcomes that all speakers this evening have highlighted. That can be done only if children and young people feel cared for.
	The results of a peer project, which a recent edition of  Community Care magazine outlined, showed that the most important thing for young people was feeling cared for. It was heartening that three quarters of those who took part in the project felt cared for by their local authorities. However, it was often because
	"of a particular individual going beyond the call of duty in the support they gave".
	That could be a foster carer—many references have been made to their important role—a residential care worker, personal assistant, leaving care worker, social worker or a teacher. Words that are key to our debate summed up the research:
	"The resilience many exhibited, despite often damaging pre-care experiences, suggests that additional practical support and ongoing emotional and psychological support could make a difference in helping them to achieve their ambitions."
	Over the years, I have met many remarkably resilient young people. We should think about them and consider the way in which we can give them the additional practical and emotional support that they need, want and applaud when they get it. That is why the Bill is so important.
	The pledge that local authorities set out to children in care must be more than words. I will mention some aspects of the Bill that I welcome before moving on to two key issues that I want to explore in more detail. Some issues have already been mentioned.
	I welcome the new duty on local authorities to provide short breaks. I worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on a series of parliamentary hearings that highlighted the pressures on families with children with disabilities. A key matter that they called for was short breaks—respite care. I also supported a private Member's Bill, which the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) promoted. Everybody who was involved with the private Member's Bill and the parliamentary hearings will applaud this Bill's provisions for short breaks.
	I also welcome the creation of the role of the designated teacher; the introduction of the bursary of £2,000 for care leavers going into higher education; the "staying put" pilot; extending entitlement to the support of a personal adviser up to the age of 25 for care leavers in education or wishing to return to education; piloting the role of the virtual head; and the additional funding for personalised learning for children in care, who are at risk of not reaching the standards that they should attain.
	Other hon. Members have mentioned poor educational outcomes for children in care, but no one has pointed out that children are often in care because they were already outside the education system. Dysfunctional families or personal problems meant that they were all too often truants. By the time they enter the care system, they have already lost much schooling and, just as important, the habit of going to school. They are reluctant to go back because they know that they will be behind their fellow pupils and they are embarrassed about that. Given that we are considering educational outcomes for children in care, we must recognise the background and examine the special measures that we can introduce to keep them in school and bolster their confidence as well as improving the education available to them.
	I want to talk about two areas in more detail: first, the voice of the child; and secondly, social work practices, which have not been mentioned in any great detail thus far. On the voice of the child, I welcome the strengthening of the role of the independent reviewing officer and the opportunity for more looked-after children to have independent visitors. However, I again urge the Minister to consider the role of independent advocacy—I know that I seem to say that every time I meet him, but it is an important issue. As has been mentioned, early-day motion 1126, on advocacy for looked-after children, which I tabled, has the support of 144 hon. Members.
	The purpose of independent advocacy is fundamentally different from that of the IRO or independent visitors. I do not want the Minister to misunderstand my championing of independent advocacy. I recognise what he and colleagues say about all professionals involved with the child having a role in advocating on their behalf. Social workers are trained as advocates on behalf of the people with whom they work, and teachers, foster carers and all the other people involved will speak up for that child. However, speaking up for the child is not the same as sitting down with them, asking them what they want and then putting their wishes into words. Sometimes those words will not be ones that professionals want to hear. That is why the young person needs an advocate.
	Let us try to put ourselves in the place of a 12, 13, 14 or 15-year-old going into a meeting with all those professionals, who are experts in their field. Would we really open our mouths and say things that we knew would annoy them or with which they would disagree? Some young people might do that, but a lot will not. That is why they need a voice to speak up for them—not someone to say what is best for them, but to say what they want. The young person might not get it, or it might be impractical; nevertheless, their voice should be heard.
	As president of Blackpool Advocacy, I have seen for myself the vital work that independent advocates do. The question of who pays for independent advocacy was raised in an earlier intervention. That is an important issue. An advocacy service tries to get money from wherever it can to deliver the work that it does. The important point is that the service's contract—whether it be with the health authority, a local authority or whomsoever is paying for the services—makes it clear that it is independent. The young person who goes to an independent advocacy service will therefore be guaranteed independence and someone speaking up for them and nobody else—indeed, the advocate might argue with the person providing the funding.
	As was mentioned earlier, in his report, "People Like Us", Sir William Utting emphasised the importance of advocacy services, which help to protect children in the care system. More than any other group, disabled children need independent advocacy, especially if they are placed away from home. Many children with a disability have communication problems. It is often frustrating for them to try to explain what their feelings are. The social care staff or other professionals who deal with them are all under pressure, and will often make assumptions about what that young person wants, instead of trying to develop the communication skills to understand what that young person is trying to say. Having an independent advocate working on behalf of young people with disabilities, and especially those with communication problems, is vital.
	The Bill is very good, but it could be made even better, if the 13,000-plus disabled children and young people placed away from home in England could have a statutory right at least to be offered the opportunity of advocacy services. Not everybody will want or need them, but they should be entitled to the opportunity to ask for them. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider strengthening the guidance on that matter.
	I know that there is already a lot of guidance on making advocacy services available, but I also know, from research that the Children's Society has conducted, that not many advocacy services have the skills to deliver to children with disability. Therefore, although I am arguing the case for independent advocacy and saying that the Government should do more to strengthen guidance on the matter, I am also arguing that advocacy service providers need to build up their services, so that they, too, can properly respond if, as I hope, we expand young people's entitlement to advocacy services. My final point on the matter is that the Children's Commissioner for England said in response to the "Care Matters" Green Paper:
	"Advocacy offers crucial protection where children face particularly complex circumstances, are in contact with...different services, or have communication difficulties."
	Again, I urge the Government to consider the issue carefully.
	Hearing the voice of the child is especially important for children with disability who are placed away from home on 52-week-a-year residential placements. We in Blackpool are fortunate, in that a Lancashire child can usually be placed fairly near home, because Lancashire is such a large county. However, I know of many other young people who are placed far away from home, because there are no local services. My fear is that some of those children who are placed away from home will not receive visitors, will perhaps lose touch with their families, will not have someone who can speak up for them and might feel that their voices are not being heard.
	Those young people not only need advocacy services, but should at least be considered for looked-after status, as the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign and other campaigners have argued strongly. Many of them will already have looked-after status, but there are some 338 disabled children on long-term placements away from home who are not looked-after children. Some of those children might not need looked-after status. I am not urging the Minister to ensure that every child affected should have looked-after status, because that might not be appropriate. However, local authorities, which currently have a duty when placing a child away from home to consider looked-after status should do so within strengthened guidance from the Government.
	I fear that there is a good deal of confusion about what looked-after status means. It does not necessarily mean a child being in care. A child can be looked-after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, which means that the parent still has parental responsibility but is working in partnership with the local authority. That would be the ideal outcome for many young people. We have heard in many contributions this evening about the importance of maintaining a child in the family or, if they have to be taken out of the family for whatever reason, of maintaining the link with the family. If a disabled child is looked-after under section 20 of the 1989 Act, those links can be maintained. The child can still have that family link, but receive all the benefits that looked-after status brings.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) listed some of those benefits, which include the entitlement to a social worker, three-monthly visits from the social worker, a care plan and contact plan, health assessments and a health plan. However, there is another key aspect, in that if the child has looked-after status for 14 weeks prior to their 18th birthday, the council has further duties of care at least until that child is 21. For a child with disability, that can be even more important than for other children in care in the looked-after system.
	For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister will consider strengthening the guidance. There was some debate in the other place about every child being looked after, but I am not saying that; I am putting the needs of the child first, and doing this for every child would not necessarily be in the best interests of some children—it should be considered at the very least, however. I note that a report from the four UK children's commissioners to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, stated:
	"We are concerned that disabled children in 52-week residential placements do not have the same statutory rights and protection afforded to children in the care system. These children should be granted looked after status to ensure they are provided with legal safeguards including more rigorous care planning provision and review."
	I agree with those four commissioners.
	I shall move on to make some brief comments on the proposals to establish social work practices. Social work practices could offer new opportunities to support young people and provide new opportunities for social workers to practise more creatively in supporting them. I am sure that local authorities would like to see clearer guidance from the Government on their role with regard to social work practices and on how their development might impact on the services that local authorities directly provide.
	As the chair of the all-party group on social care, I know that we have recently completed an inquiry into the challenges facing the social care work force. Our key findings concerned status, recruitment and involvement. If these social care practices can improve the status, recruitment and involvement of social workers, they will be welcome. I know that the British Association of Social Workers has welcomed these proposals—well, it has certainly welcomed the setting up of pilots. Let us make sure that the pilots are practical, that they are spread around different parts of the country and that lessons are learned from them. If the pilots are successful, let us roll them out.
	I note that some voluntary sector organisations say that they may rethink whether to bid to be involved in the pilots, mainly because of the possibility of proposals to pay them according to performance outcomes. I am sure that the Minister will liaise with those voluntary sector organisations on the development of an outcomes framework, which could be linked to payments in such a way as to reassure such organisations about their involvement in social work practices. It could be a win-win situation.
	I finish by saying that I welcome the Bill, which includes wide-ranging measures that will improve the life chances of the very vulnerable young people for whom we, local authorities and parents have a responsibility. We should all work together to ensure that those responsibilities are fulfilled so that we and those young people can move on.

Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who speaks with such authority on this subject, as, indeed, did my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson). I am delighted to have the opportunity to endorse the tribute paid by the hon. Lady to my hon. Friend, who I am sure the whole House would agree has made a very distinguished maiden speech. He observed all the conventions, but he did much more than that. He paid eloquent tribute, quite rightly, to his predecessor and to his constituency, while also bringing to bear his experience and expertise on the subject matter of this debate in a very telling way. I predict that my hon. Friend will have a long and distinguished career in this House. It was a privilege to be present at such an auspicious start to his journey.
	The House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to develop the incidental reference in the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to the 2005 Conservative election manifesto. That is not my purpose this evening. I, too, welcome the Bill, but I want to focus on a particular aspect that has not yet been touched on this evening.
	Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State a statutory duty to promote the well-being of children, and part 3 sets out a number of provisions relating to adoption. It is to the law and practice of adoption that I wish to address my remarks. Clause 8 is, of course, quite right. There is no more profound duty for society as a whole than the well-being of children. We have all been shocked again and again by incidents of the most terrible abuse inflicted on children—incidents that we find it very difficult to believe can occur in our country in the 21st century. That applies, too, where what happens does not hit the headlines and falls far short of grievous abuse, as many children in our society suffer disadvantage of one kind or another.
	The ideal environment in which a child should grow up is a loving family. That is what is most likely to increase the sum of human happiness. That is what is most likely to lead to children growing up to enjoy full and satisfying lives. That is what is most likely to lead to their avoiding a life of unemployment and crime.
	Nothing I say this afternoon should be taken to reflect on the dedication of those who look after our children who are in care. They have a difficult task and I pay tribute to them—to the vast majority of them—who do their very best to perform this task in a selfless and conscientious way. But the statistics tell us clearly that children in care do less well—significantly less well—than other children. The gap between the words with which the Minister for Children, Young People and Families opened her speech and the reality is, alas, a large one.
	In September 1999, the Government established 11 objectives for children's social services in England. I shall not go through all 11; I do not need to, because some of the examples that I intended to cite have already been cited by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Let me nevertheless touch on one or two. For example, 13.4 per cent. of looked-after children missed at least 25 days of schooling in 2006. Among year 11 students in 2006, 66 per cent. of looked-after children obtained at least one GCSE at grade A* to G or GNVQ, compared with a national figure of 98 per cent.—66 per cent. as compared with 98 per cent.
	Most tellingly of all, perhaps, during the year ending 30 September 2006, looked-after children aged 10 or older were more than twice as likely to have received a conviction or a final warning or reprimand than other children.
	The conclusion that I think any sensible Government would draw from that depressing litany of statistics is that where there is a viable alternative to care, and in particular where it is possible for a child to be brought up within and by a loving family, everything possible should be done to facilitate that alternative, to encourage it and to smooth the path of those who want to provide it.
	The most obvious alternative, or at least one of the most obvious, is adoption. Of course, that will not be possible in all cases for every child, and of course great care must be taken to ensure that any potential adoptive parent is properly checked and helped to understand the difficulties and pitfalls that may lie ahead, but surely that does not mean that those who could provide a loving family should be discouraged, deterred or forced, as so many are, to look abroad for the child they want to bring into their family, yet as we all know, that is exactly what happens in far too many cases.
	I have long been concerned by that state of affairs, but my interest was sharpened by a report that I read recently in  The Mail on Sunday on the difficulties encountered by Gavin and Teresa Allen. Mr. Allen is an executive editor of the BBC's "Question Time" and "Politics Show", and Mrs. Allen is a director of a staff recruitment business. I should say that, as far as I know, I have never met either of them, although I did check with Mr. Allen this morning that he had no objection to my raising his case in the debate.
	The Allens have been together for nearly 20 years and married for nearly 10. They have a comfortable home and supportive family and friends, and they were judged to be a suitable couple to adopt. They were willing to adopt any child who needed a loving family home. Yet despite years of trying, when it came down to specific decisions on specific children, adoption panels repeatedly decided that they were unsuitable in that case. They have come to the shocking and devastating conclusion that all they can offer is outweighed by the huge disadvantage of the fact that they are white and middle class.
	The Allens' story is one of many. Their story, like so many others, paints a picture of adoption that is far from what I assume any of us in the House would want to be the case. Mrs. Allen told the newspaper:
	"We have discovered that if you are white and have a decent living, the adoption authorities put you to the bottom of the pile."
	What is more, it seems that adoption panels judge a child to be from a minority ethnic group even when they are mixed race and primarily white. Mr. and Mrs. Allen say that they were repeatedly rejected because of their ethnic background
	"even when a child was only a quarter black, Caribbean or even Irish".
	They were
	"turned down to adopt a baby who was an eighth Jewish, something not even her foster family knew."
	Why does this happen? Why are countless children left to be disadvantaged by the care system when there are available suitable adoptive parents? Mr. and Mrs. Allen say that they believe
	"the answer is obvious... one social services director told us categorically that he would rather a black child be brought up in the care system than in a white family."
	I pose this question to the Minister: is that state of affairs what the Government want?
	According to the law, the paramount consideration in cases of adoption is the welfare of the child. That is exactly as it should be. It is true that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 requires an adoption agency to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. It also requires an adoption agency to give due consideration to the wishes of the natural parent. But I repeat, according to the law the paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child. So, although factors such as race and cultural background have to be considered, they should not be able to prevent a child from being placed with adopters of a different background if that is in the child's best interests. Yet clearly, far too often, that is what happens.
	Does the reason for that perhaps lie with the statutory guidance issued by the Government under the 2002 Act? That guidance emphasises the requirements to consider the child's religious and cultural upbringing, as well as any wishes and feelings that the child's parents or guardian may have about those matters. Is it perhaps the case that adoption agencies and social services departments are placing too much emphasis on that part of the guidance and not enough on the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child?
	The answers to those questions seem to me to be of great significance. If social service departments are misinterpreting the law, and misinterpreting or failing to apply the law and the Government's guidance, that might provide my party—and particularly my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—with a rare opportunity to change things while still in opposition nationally. After all, many—probably most—of the local authorities that exercise political control of their social services departments are now in the hands of the Conservative party. If those departments are getting it wrong, my hon. Friends should be able to use their influence to put the situation right. If, on the other hand, the guidance is wrong, the Government should change it. If, contrary to what seems to be the case, the law is wrong, the law should be changed, and this Bill provides the opportunity to do it.
	I would very much like the Minister to answer the following questions. Is he satisfied with the current state of affairs on adoption? If not—I hope that he is not satisfied—why does he think that social services departments and adoption agencies are getting it wrong, and what does he propose to do about it? I look forward to his replies.

Natascha Engel: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this very important debate, especially as it is about protecting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
	The proposals are fantastic and will no doubt improve the general health and well-being of looked-after children. However, I want to speak briefly about extending those protections to all our children, and about a reform that is currently not in the Bill but should be—a ban on all forms of violence against all children.
	I declare an interest as both a trustee of the UK Youth Parliament and a passionate supporter of the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance—a cross-party umbrella group of more than 400 different organisations and professionals, which campaigns on the single issue of making the physical punishment or chastisement of children illegal.
	This year, hundreds of thousands of children will be hit—with the approval of the law. If we were talking about any other group of people, there would be a public outcry. We would not be allowed to hide behind euphemisms such as "smacking" or "a clip round the ear". If I were to hit someone whose behaviour I found unacceptable, I would be acting illegally. If I were to hit my five-month-old baby in a supermarket just because he was screaming, there would be little protection for him against such violence.
	Smacking means deliberately hurting children as punishment. It should have no place in a modern, civilised society, especially at the moment when we are trying to put an end to all forms of violence. Parliament must send an unequivocal message that hitting all children is as unacceptable and unlawful as hitting anyone else. This is an equality and human rights issue. Children and young people do not have the same rights and protections as adults, yet are often in far more vulnerable situations.
	I urge hon. Members to listen to the professionals working with children and families, who say that the unclear, unsafe and unjust legal defence of "reasonable punishment" in section 58 of the Children Act 2004 should be abolished right now to give children equal protection from assault. I refer to the Government's public consultation only year, which concluded:
	"Respondents generally felt that section 58 of the Children Act 2004 had made little positive impact on children, families and those working with them. It was considered that section 58 has not improved legal protection for children in cases of alleged assault by their parents. Many respondents felt that the only way to protect children is to ban physical discipline outright."
	Our own children's commissioners last week called for urgent action on the issue. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child says that reform should be an "immediate and unqualified obligation". Above all, I urge hon. Members to listen to children—like my own five-month-old who cannot even speak yet—and to hear their fears and concerns. When the time comes for a fuller debate on the issue, I hope that all Members of the House will give children the full legal protection from hit and hurt that all of us in here take for granted.

Helen Southworth: I welcome all the steps taken in the Bill, but I think the most important comment that has been made about it is that it represents a radical step change in ambitions. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I intend to begin by talking about the ambitions that we have for our children. What has been said today suggests that our ambition is not just to keep them safe and healthy; we want them to be happy, and then, when we see them safe, healthy and happy, we want them to achieve things. We want them to develop their own potential and become fully human beings, fully part of society, and fully achieving. At every step that the Bill takes, we must retain that ambition for the children whom it seeks to support.
	It is extremely welcome that the Bill places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote the well-being of children in England. That is indeed a radical step change. It represents a monumental difference in the way in which we in the House behave, because if our Secretary of State has that duty, we as Members of Parliament must have a duty to ensure that it is carried out.
	The Minister will, again, not be surprised to learn that I want to press the ambition for children who are in care and leaving care to have the right of access to full and proper support until they are 21. If it is appropriate for them to stay with a foster carer they should be able to do so, but if that is not appropriate they should have alternative proper, effective support. The Bill gives us an opportunity to stretch out and to aim high. An ambition must be seized when the opportunity comes, and we in the House must take the opportunity now to agree that until the age of 21, young people need access to support. The Minister said at the beginning of her speech that most young people do not leave home and stop receiving parental support until the age of 24, so specifying the age of 21 does not strike me as over-ambitious.
	Members have commented on how poor educational outcomes are among children in care in comparison with other children. Only 12 per cent. of looked-after children achieve five GCSEs or the equivalent, compared with 59 per cent. nationally, and only 6 per cent. of children who were looked after at the age of 16 had entered higher education by the age of 19. In 2006, 35 per cent.—one third—of looked-after pupils did not sit any GSCE examinations or GNVQ equivalents.
	Some children take a little longer than others to achieve success, perhaps because they have rather more problems to overcome than others. The time when children are sitting GCSEs or A-levels is also the time when those in care are most likely to be leaving it. A quarter of children leave care in their 16th year, at a time when they are sitting exams. Very few children—a tiny fraction of the total— are still in care at the age of 18, but how many are still sitting A-levels when they have reached their 18th birthdays? For most children that is not particularly unusual, but for children in care it means that they will no longer have access to full and proper support from a local authority.
	Fostering Network has given me the example of a foster parent fostering a young person who arrived as a teenager. He had suffered significant trauma but had managed to deal with it, had settled and was beginning to succeed. This young man became head boy at his school and was studying for A-levels in the hope of going to university. When he turns 18, however, all support from the local authority will cease, at the time when he will be doing his A-levels. In order to provide stability for him, his foster carer is spending almost £20,000 of her own money to convert the loft so that he can stay with her while she fosters other children. That is a phenomenal commitment, but she should not have to do it, and many foster carers could not do it. That story provides an incredibly convincing argument, however, for making sure that young people can access effective support from somebody who is totally committed to their success.
	It is great that people will have access to advisers, but what about somebody they can phone up at night or at the weekend so that they can tell them about things? That is what makes the real difference when people are looking for support. What about that tiny fraction of people in care who go to university, and who need somewhere to go home to, or someone to ring up when they have a problem? Also, what about those other young people who should be going to university, or on to vocational training or further education? We must make sure that they have access, too. We do not need pilot projects to tell us that people do better if they have got someone backing them up. All Members of this House know that people do not make it on their own. We have a duty to make sure that we give these young people access to proper support when they need it, especially when they have had a bad start anyway and they need our intervention more than others.
	When Fostering Network first came to talk to me about this, I thought I should be focusing on some of the other cases that people had been bringing to my attention, such as the 17-year-old who was pregnant and very vulnerable, had been placed in a hostel for homeless people and been told she could not get accommodation until the baby was born, or the 15-year-old I was made aware of who was taken out of foster care and instead was put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I thought I should be focusing on them, but then I realised that I was suffering from a lack of ambition, because all these young people should be getting access to support up to the age of 21. They all need the same thing. We must stretch our ambitions, because if we do not, we will not deliver for the more vulnerable children who are in care and who are finding it difficult and do not have people to intervene for them. I ask the Minister to address this matter with serious intent so that we can bring it forward.
	We should not rely on pilots, but instead act on what we already know and use the evidence that there already is. In 2006, Joseph Rowntree research showed that 36 per cent. of young people reported being homeless at some time in the year after leaving care, and the Rainer Home Alone report found that almost one in six care leavers had unsuitable accommodation. We should give them access up to the age of 21 to someone who can help them get into proper accommodation and do all the things that a mum or dad or friendly relative can do when young people are trying to set themselves up in their own home and work out how to live in an adult world.
	The Minister will not be surprised that I also wish to bring up the matter of support for children in care who cannot handle it and who have run away. When Lancashire police set up their "mountains into molehills" project, they used some very effective computer systems to track the reports that they were getting about children who had gone missing. They found that they were spending more than £6 million a year on investigating reports and that each report was costing them in the region of £1,000 to investigate, and when they did further analysis they found that the majority of the reports were about young people under 18 and the majority of those were about people in the care of the local authority who were consistently running away. One young girl did so 78 times—a cost of £78,000 in police time that did not benefit her. However, when the police got together with the local authority and the care homes and identified which children were at risk, and started working with the care homes to do something about why they were running away and to deal with that, running away incidents reduced radically. We have had the same finding from a number of different authorities; Leicester police force found exactly the same thing. What they are telling us is that if we work effectively to identify children at risk and then work with care homes to identify why this is happening, we can put it right and prevent these young people from getting involved in all the things that some of them get involved in. The evidence to the all-party group that held hearings on this issue showed that many of those young people were not just running away from something; they were being targeted by predatory adults and running to something. They were being groomed—and these were children in the care of a local authority.
	I want to follow up the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has been working very actively on this issue, by asking the Minister a question. Will he ensure that inspection processes involve reports of instances of running away and of assaults, and that they take proper account of what is going on in care homes and of whether these things are being dealt with effectively?
	Today, we have had the wonderful launch of the young runaways action plan, which is giving support for all young runaways, but unless we make sure that care homes and their staff understand that they have a key role to play and that it will be supported but also monitored, we will not make the proper change that we can make, if we are ambitious, for children in care.
	Finally, will my hon. Friend the Minister give some further thought to children in custody? We have had quite a focus on the fact that a child in care is more likely to end up in custody than in university. I have had what is in many ways the privilege of working with some of the people at the young offenders institute in Thorn Cross, in my constituency. I have been really impressed by the dedication of the staff there, who have been working extremely hard to make sure that young offenders in that institute are in the first instance safe, but also have the opportunity to understand why they are there and how they can stay out in future. Those are absolutely crucial things. I would be far happier, as everybody here would, if we could be far more effective, so that young people do not get themselves into that position. However, I want to know how the Bill is going properly to support vulnerable young people in custody, so that they have access to a social worker who is not travelling a long distance and is perhaps unable to get there, but who is there and can develop a relationship with them, and who can be interested in and supportive of them in the long term.
	I also want to know how we are going to ensure that young offenders have access to the kind of things being done at Thorn Cross, where the Cheshire fire service has a fire cadet programme. Young people learn about social responsibility, meet role models whom they can look up to, and are getting involved in doing good in their local community. It has been a very effective programme. As effective, in many ways, has been the programme from the Halle orchestra, which has been working with young people and involving them in music. When they are in a position to leave the institute, it tries to match them up with a youth orchestra or a band, so that they have a different peer group. Such things are really important in making a difference for young people.
	Thorn Cross has developed lots of relationships in the local community, allowing young offenders opportunities to use some of the skills that they are learning. Some of them have never had any opportunity for education before, and they are getting NVQs at the young offenders institute and then going out into the community and helping voluntary organisations, thereby putting something back in. This is a really important issue and I am raising it so determinedly because we have got to be ambitious to protect the safety of young people in custody, who are young people in care, and to provide them with every help and encouragement to stop offending.
	The report by Anne Owers, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, which was published in February, stated:
	"The juvenile unit at Thorn Cross is the only open establishment for under-18s in the prison system. It is also the only juvenile establishment that this inspectorate has assessed as performing well across all four of our key tests—safety, respect, activity and resettlement. It is therefore particularly ironic that this will be its last inspection, as the Youth Justice Board has decided to withdraw funding and remove under-18s from Thorn Cross. This is therefore an obituary, rather than a report on progress."
	She continued:
	"This inspection showed that the Thorn Cross juvenile unit was a beacon of good practice in working with a small number of young people and preparing them for the transition to life outside prison. This is a model that should be built on, not abandoned. It may be that this would be better delivered through smaller units in a number of locations — and this is something that the Youth Justice Board is now reviewing. However, to close Thorn Cross before there are any concrete plans for alternative open units, and largely for immediate financial reasons, is both disappointing and retrograde."
	I hope that the Bill will ensure that far fewer young people from care go into custody and that there is every opportunity for any young person who has committed an offence, in order to prevent any future offending. I recommend the Bill.

John Bercow: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), to whose indefatigable and outstanding work, in particular on behalf of runaway children, I should like to pay the warmest possible tribute. I was delighted also to hear the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) reiterate her commitment to securing a ban on smacking, and for the avoidance of doubt I can say that if such an amendment to the Bill is tabled, I, for one, will be pleased to support it.
	I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will understand if I reserve my most effusive words for my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson), who is newly arrived in this place. It is customary, on occasions such as this, that hon. and right hon. Members, irrespective of party, should reflect upon the strengths of the Member and of the speech. In these circumstances, that poses no difficulty for me, because I echo the generous but thoroughly justified tributes that have already been paid to my hon. Friend. He spoke with wit, with eloquence, with passion and with wisdom— wisdom and discernment born of a direct experience of the care system, a hands-on involvement that gave him the knowledge that allowed him authoritatively and pithily to contribute to debate on the Bill. I, for one, welcome him as a new colleague and look forward with interest and respect to his future contributions to our proceedings, and I suspect that I will not be alone in thinking in those terms.
	I welcome the Bill, which is an excellent measure. Doubtless, as so often these days, I shall contribute in my non-partisan way, which will provoke great suspicion and a certain amount of excoriating criticism from people who think that it is absolutely to be expected that one should try to behave in as tribal a manner as possible. For my own part, I have really no interest in doing so; when a measure is good, I believe in saying so. I think that this is a good measure, in terms both of purpose and, predominantly, of content, and the Government should be applauded for what is, unquestionably, an advance.
	I hope that the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, who knows the very high esteem in which I hold her, will not take it amiss if I choose, therefore, to focus my remarks not on the excellent contents of the Bill, about which much has been said, but on those additions to it, or amendments of it, that in my view could make it better still.
	I must say that I enthusiastically endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), which was underlined in interventions by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and others, including the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), about the merits of—indeed, the requirement for—the insertion of a commitment to independent advocacy. That is not, in any sense, to belittle or dismiss the important improvements in arrangements in relation to independent reviewing officers. Much thought has been given to that subject, it has been open to consultation, Ministers have reflected on the matter, and Lord Adonis conducted himself in the other place with a diligence and breadth of mind that most of us who know him have come to expect from him.
	I simply put it to the Minister of State that the role of the independent reviewing officer is important, but it is a discrete role. The role of the independent visitor is important, but it is a separate function. The role of an independent advocate should be established, valued, supported, extended and made an entitlement for people in care because of its own merits. It seems to me that the significance of the role of the advocate is that he or she would be genuinely separate from, uninfluenced by and independent of the decision-making process that his or her services on behalf of the child or young people could hope to influence.
	Ministers have said that, yes, they can see the merit of advocacy, but they seem to be slightly timid and apprehensive about making a commitment to independent advocacy an entitlement. The argument has already been powerfully made. I think it could be contended quite forcefully—I am not a lawyer; I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride—that article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child would probably make a potent case in support of the establishment of independent advocacy. Moreover, I feel that particularly strongly in relation to those children in care who have special educational needs. The House will be conscious of the fact that that is something to which I attach great importance.
	There has been a litany of statistics already in the debate; I simply want to underline one figure that was included in an earlier speech: 28 per cent. of children in care have statements of special educational needs, as compared with 3 per cent. of the school population as a whole. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, in a compelling speech, gave the example of those children who have communication difficulties. They might have learning disabilities; they might also suffer from severe physical disability, but they might not. I want to underline the fact that children or young people with speech, language or communication difficulties of a significant intensity should be regarded as suffering from a disability every bit as anxiety provoking, debilitating and potentially life or potential limiting as would be a physical impairment or a mental disability. For children who probably know what they want, know what they need, know what their interests are, know what they want to be done for them and know how they wish to contribute to its being done to be unable themselves to articulate it is quite the most breathtakingly frustrating state of affairs. For such children, the right to independent advocacy could make a decisive difference.
	The Minister of State has probably heard me make the point before that in relation to special educational needs—I respect the fact that the Government do not agree with me on this point—I feel that local authorities are in a virtually omnipotent position, in the sense that they assess, decide, pay for and more often than not provide what the child gets by way of special educational needs provision. My own view—it is shared by some although not by all contributors to the special educational needs debate—is that it would be wise to separate the assessment of need from the funding of provision. Whether or not that is desirable, I put it to right hon. and hon. Members that, if the average child with SEN is in a bit of a difficulty in negotiating with either a recalcitrant or simply a cash-strapped local authority, we should think how much worse it is for a child in care who does not even have the advantage of a parent or parents articulating, advocating, agitating, lobbying and campaigning on his or her behalf.
	In those circumstances, there is a compelling case for independent advocacy, and I would go further, as did the hon. Members for Stourbridge and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, in saying let there be an extension of looked-after status from those formerly described as being in care to those who are permanently resident a significant distance from home within the education system. Decisions will be made on their behalf. Events are unfolding. Judgments have to be made. Advocates are required. It is not too late for the Government, during the passage of the Bill, to reconsider their position.
	What I am bothered about above all is the concept of the unchallenged omnipotence of the public authority. Against that, one needs a counterbalance.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend suspect that there are occasions when the outcome of an assessment can be informed by the availability of funding to provide the right treatment?

John Bercow: There is absolutely no doubt that some judgments are determined on the basis of available resources rather than on the extent of the need. If I am to be fair to the Government, I must say to my hon. Friend that in probably any imaginable system some regard will have to be paid to resources. There has to be some limit; it is not possible to satisfy every demand. It seems to me, however, that the difference at the moment is that there is an inbuilt incentive to keep costs down and perhaps in some cases, inadvertently and subliminally, to put the issue of the purse before the requirement of the child or young person.
	Reference has been made to the educational provisions of the Bill. I welcome what has been said about the designated teacher. The Government will want to take care to ensure that it is not automatically assumed across the country that, for example, the post should be taken up by the special educational needs co-ordinator. It might be advisable for that to happen, but it should not be assumed as a matter of course. If the SENCO already has an extensive miscellany of responsibilities and rather limited time in which to fulfil them, there might be merit in having somebody else perform that role.
	There could be a need for training. That will involve a cost. It will require backfilling so that that member of staff can go away and receive the necessary training, advice, instruction and practical experience before coming back to deliver. There is thus a world of difference between the proclamation that such a thing should happen and the observable evidence on the ground that it is happening, but I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. We have to start somewhere and I welcome the inclusion of that measure in the Bill.
	I share the concern that there is a mismatch between the commitment to an entitlement for those going into higher education provided for in clause 21 and the reference in the context of those seeking to go into further education to assistance to enable them to do so. Those words were not chosen accidentally. They clearly denote a difference in terms of the intent and scale of ministerial commitment. Let me be absolutely clear: the Government are right on higher education, and the measure is consistent with the agenda of trying to raise aspiration, to lift young people up and to say that there should not be some sort of artificial ceiling. Of course, historically, the figures for participation in higher education by those in care have been lamentably low. Although they have somewhat improved of late, they remain grossly unsatisfactory. That has been the case under successive Governments.
	I do not knock the commitment that the Government have made. Moreover, I think that the chosen figure of a couple of thousand pounds is not entirely arbitrary. It has been chosen on the basis of the expected debt levels of someone coming from care into higher education and so on and on the financial disincentive that the present arrangements apply. That makes sense, but we are in danger, if we do not amend the Bill, of discriminating against those who want to go into further education, vocational training or apprenticeships. I cannot see any merit in doing so.
	Comment has already been made on the fact that large numbers—by far the majority—of people in care leave before the age of 18. If they are still in care and leave at the age of 19, if memory serves me 30 per cent. enter the not in education, employment or training—or NEET—category. There is a concentration of need among those leaving the system who are uneducated, untrained, unqualified, often historically and currently unwell, and unable effectively to equip themselves to contribute to their own personal fulfilment or the strength of the economy or public services. We ought to be saying, "Let's support them if they want to go on to further education." Not to do so constitutes unwarranted, if unintended, discrimination, for the reason that I gave. I put it to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), that that seems illogical.
	One could be forgiven for thinking, if one were a cynic—but I do not because I am not—that the Government were minded to provide higher education funding on the grounds that there will not be that much take-up, so the cost to public funds will not be all that high. That would be an unworthy basis on which to operate, but the Minister is nothing if not worthy, conscientious and dedicated, so I do not think that that can be the reasoning; however, that is how it looks to the cynic. We should make a comparable commitment to those seeking to go on to training, further education or apprenticeships; we will then be applying an equal standard to both categories.
	I add my support to those who say that it was right for the Bill to have been amended in the other place, courtesy of the efforts of my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton. I agree with new clause 7: it seems entirely right that the list of organisations subject to a public duty to promote the welfare of the child or young person should include what was the Border and Immigration Agency and is now the UK Border Agency. If right hon. and hon. Members look at the Children Act 2004, they will see a plethora of organisations that will be subject to a duty to promote the welfare of the child, although their primary purpose is something other than the promotion of that welfare. We are talking about the national health service, the education service, children's service providers, the Prison Service, the probation service and the police service. To my knowledge, it is no longer argued about any of those that the imposition of that duty would somehow prevent them from fulfilling their primary purpose, or would dilute their effectiveness in seeking to do so. If they can combine their wider responsibilities with the fulfilment of that duty, I see absolutely no reason why the UK Border Agency should not be able to do so.
	The Minister has distinguished experience in other Departments, including the Home Office. I ask her not to let the Bill be driven by the preconceptions or apprehensions of the Home Office. I appeal to her to be bold. There is sometimes a concern that one has to appease the red-top tabloids—that the media are obsessed with the level of immigration and that, to some extent, one has to diffuse the tension, allay the anxiety and remove the opportunity to be beaten with the tabloid stick. The Government should be bold about that. There will be cross-party support if the Government accept the Bill as amended in the other place.
	What is more, public opinion on such matters is more sophisticated and enlightened than colleagues sometimes suppose. Yes, people are concerned about uncontrolled immigration, and it is right that that should be addressed, but they are also concerned about the rights, treatment, entitlement and pursuit of the welfare of children. No one is more vulnerable than a child who has been trafficked into the country, or who is a persecuted, timorous, frightened but hopeful asylum seeker. I appeal to the Government to consider the matter. In other respects, they have tightened up on judicial review; if they are worried that it will not be possible to return children to their countries of origin under any circumstances, that fear is not justified. I appeal to the Minister at least not to close the door on the subject, but to consider the merits of cross-party discussions and an agreement to retain the Bill as it is.
	I agree with what has been said by other hon. Members about extending the provision of foster care, as requested by the Fostering Network and the national organisation that offers advice and support on the subject. I am not sure that we need so many pilots. The Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety operates a miscellany of schemes, the results of which are clearly observable. There is a patchwork of other such provision in other parts of the country, too. We should not delay for the sake of delay. If we think that there is a reasonable evidence base, let us go with it. The cause is progressive, and it should be celebrated.
	My final point is about the architecture of the Bill. I do not cavil at it, but it carries an implication. As Members will notice if they look at the Bill clause by clause, of the 45 clauses no fewer than 13 provide for secondary legislation such as order-making powers and statutory instruments. One of the two schedules allows for such provision, too. That is sometimes necessary—sometimes it is not—and that is the case in many instances in the Bill. Fair dos—I am content with that—but if substantial parts of the Bill are to be dealt with later by secondary legislation, and we are advised that many of those provisions will be subject to the negative procedure of the House whereby, unless there is a specific request to debate them, they are not debated, there is an obligation on Ministers to try to introduce draft regulations before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
	That is an habitual war cry on my part, but the difficulty otherwise is that we are to some extent voting for a pig in a poke. I would like to know more of the positive detail of that secondary legislation. Let us see it. It is a good Bill, and it is under the stewardship of an immensely capable ministerial team. I wish it well, but it can be made a little bit better, and I hope that my comments are taken in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.

David Kidney: I must be brief. Like other Members, I heap praise on my noble Friend Lord Adonis, who simply played a blinder in the other place. He presented a decent Bill well enough, but he listened carefully to constructive and, I thought, convincing arguments made by peers and, as a result, he agreed to make numerous changes that improved the Bill immensely. He made changes such as placing the new duty on the Secretary of State to promote well-being, and the new duty on local authorities to plan a range of accommodation for those in care; and he agreed to the right to breaks from caring for disabled children. Those were major improvements; I just want more in this Chamber.
	I chair the associate parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers, the ethos of which is to bring looked-after children and care leavers to Parliament, and enable people to speak directly to politicians and other decision makers. As chair, I hear the same complaints over and over again: drift in care planning; too many moves in care; the knock-on effect of educational under-achievement; unmet health care needs; poor preparation for leaving care; too many children leaving care inappropriately at 16; a lack of suitable accommodation after leaving care; and the basic fault of not listening to looked-after children, and not giving effect to what they say. Although the faces before me change, the messages continue.
	Understandably, young people ask why, when we have identified the problems, politicians do not do anything about them. I therefore hope that the Bill provides an opportunity to do what they want us to do. The Government have not been inactive for 11 years—in fact, they deserve a lot of praise for what they have done for children in the care system. I remember the Quality Protects initiative; today, we have the brilliant Care Matters agenda; and, of course, there is the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. More generally—and it is important to place looked-after children in the context of all children—we have had the excellent Every Child Matters agenda and the children's plan.
	At the end of March, the Government, the Association of Directors of Children's Services and the Local Government Association published an implementation plan called "Care Matters: Time to deliver for children in care", which provides all the tools and advice that people could possibly need to do a good job, and that brings me to the Bill, which gives them the job to do.
	For me, the starting point is to avoid the use of care if at all possible in every case. That is not just about early intervention, as we have heard tonight, but about a child-friendly society. It is about eradicating child poverty, and making our communities much more supportive of parents and the difficult work that they do in bringing up children. If care is necessary, we should try to make it involve short-lived interventions that result in the successful return of children to their families. I use the world "family" in the broadest sense of the term, including kinship care. In particular, like other Members, I support those brilliant grandparents who care not only for their children, when they thought that they had seen the last of them as adults, but for their grandchildren.
	I detect in clause 36 a helpful little step in the right direction in respect of the entitlement to apply for a residence order, but what is really needed to make care, such as kinship care, work effectively is properly structured support, including the ability of agencies to pay carers for bringing up children. I welcome in clause 24 the slight change in respect of cash payments that can be made to such people, but I am talking about help with the legal costs of getting the residence order and with the social security benefits that are constantly denied to the grandparents but that the parents would have received, and with all the other obstacles that are placed in people's way when they are doing brilliant work on society's behalf.
	There is also no explicit provision for sibling contact. Although the local authority is required to allow contact, the authority is not required to facilitate it. Roger Morgan, the children's rights director for England, who has been mentioned already, recently published the views of 433 children on improving care standards. The fourth main recommendation from the children was:
	"Care placements should be designed so that brothers and sisters can stay together".
	The Bill carries across the provisions in the Children Act 1989 relating to a duty on local authorities to accommodate together siblings
	"so far as is reasonably practicable".
	However, we must look at using this legislative opportunity to strengthen the duty on local authorities both to place children together, unless it is not in their best interests to do so, and to support sibling contact as part of their corporate parenting function.
	Children may go into care from an abusive or neglectful environment. Distress, emotional trauma or more profound mental health issues might reasonably be anticipated, and those problems must be identified and addressed. The choice of an appropriate placement depends on that assessment, and work that is done early to provide mental health care or to promote emotional well-being will often make a major difference to a child's life. The National Children's Bureau reminds us in its briefing—perhaps surprisingly—of the many physical illnesses and conditions that are missed when children entering care are assessed. Those factors convinced me that effort and money must be invested in the physical and mental health care and emotional well-being of looked-after children to ensure sufficiently high standards of care for all looked-after children. On the question of how to achieve that, perhaps we can debate in Committee whether more is needed through the letter of the law, through regulations or through guidance.
	On the question of foster care or residential care, two out of three children who go into public care are fostered. The majority of fostered children return to their own families within a year—clearly, a very successful outcome. However, foster care is not the right solution for all looked-after children; it depends on the assessment of each child's individual needs. When foster care is the right choice, none the less, there must be an adequate supply of foster carers to meet the demand—that is, not only enough foster carers to meet total demand, but enough to match individual needs. Issues about pay and support for foster carers also need to be addressed if more children are to enjoy positive experiences in foster care placements. Support should encompass a system for investigating allegations against foster carers that is fair to complainants and fair to the foster carers themselves.
	Some constraints are beyond the control of foster carers, such as local authorities pushing children out of care at 16 and the current legal age limit of 18 for a foster care placement. We politicians must do more to remove those constraints. Children in residential care were often, in their early lives, powerless in their families, so they may depend on their residential care worker to be their best advocate. All social care staff should be given professional development and support to enable them to be the most effective and efficient advocates for the children in their care. Their work must support what is done to intervene in, and help, families, even before children become legally subject to the duties of local authorities.
	It is vital that we make social care work more attractive so that we can get away from the current situation, with which we are all familiar, of a high threshold of intervention in families because of a lack of overall social care capacity. That, in turn, should help to prevent the high turnover that such children often experience.
	I have been asked to be brief, so I shall make just two additional points. First, many Members have called for the support of advocacy for children, and I very strongly support it. Secondly, it is absolutely terrible that youngsters are taken out of care without preparations for independent living, or taken out of care at 18 and put into a home that is not at all suitable for them. Many then fall into the kind of difficulties that we have heard about, involving all the depressing statistics cited at the beginning of the debate.
	This Bill is our one opportunity to get things right for the next generation and, I hope, for all the future generations of children who will come into contact with the care system. Let us ensure that we do good job of it.

John Hemming: As time is limited, I will aim to say everything that I want to say in about three minutes to allow for three minutes for another speech.
	Hon. Members will be aware that I chair an organisation called Justice for Families, which concerns itself with failures and miscarriages of justice in the family courts. This debate is like "Groundhog Day" in that we are again talking about all the various processes such as kinship caring that we wanted to achieve years ago, but that still do not happen. In essence, that comes down to a failure of accountability. Tomorrow morning, as part of an all-party group of MPs, I will table two new clauses, one of which deals with how people take advice in the family courts and the accountability of the process while maintaining confidentiality. The other deals with how we scrutinise the decision-making process in the family courts. We will not be allowed to attack that particular aspect, which is covered by section 31 of the Children Act 1989. That section is in part 1 of that Act, while parts 2 and 3 are covered by the Bill and can therefore be amended.
	It is important to listen to people such as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who obviously understands what is really going on in this very complex process. Unless we find a mechanism for making all the practitioners—not just the good ones—follow the law, do things the right way, use independent advocates and avoid people perverting the course of justice by threatening to take their money off them, we will be wasting our time producing new statute, because it will be ignored by the worst practitioners. Another problem is that those practitioners are required to follow the Government targets, although I accept that the Government scrapped a lot of those targets from 1 April. The critical issue is one of accountability and following the law. Unless proposals for that are included, we will have all the nice, fine words but things will continue in the same vein.

Angela Watkinson: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for allowing me a couple of minutes to squeeze in my speech at the end of this very consensual debate.
	I would like to pick out two aspects of the requirement on local authorities to provide suitable accommodation. That will be a great challenge in many cases. Occasionally, I find that 16 and 17-year-olds have been given council tenancies, but these young people do not have the life skills, personal responsibility or discipline to be able to cope with living independently. We need to find other ways of giving them a halfway house between being a child and an adult and giving them the support and back-up of an adult.
	The other aspect is the requirement to provide respite care for families with children with very special needs. I think particularly of children on the autistic disorder spectrum, whose families desperately need the opportunity for respite care. That accommodation will have to be tailor made and very specific to the needs of children who do not respond well to change and the unfamiliar, with highly trained staff to look after them so that those families can enjoy their respite without having to worry about whether their children are being looked after properly.
	There are two special challenges for local authorities in providing accommodation for young teenagers who are not really mature enough to live successfully on their own without being a nuisance to their neighbours and in providing respite care for those who look after children with very special needs.

Maria Miller: We have heard throughout the debate agreement on both sides of the House that every child needs a stable, secure and caring environment in which to grow and thrive, never more so than when they are unable to live with their own parents and the duty to care for them falls on to the state.
	The reasons why children come into care differ, but for two out of three looked-after children the main reason why social services first get involved in a child's life is abuse or neglect. Such children are already vulnerable, and the support that they are given should provide the stability and security that they need. It is important to note that the majority of children in care are aged between 10 and 15, which is not an easy period of life for many children and certainly not for those subject to the turmoil of going into care.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has said, we welcome the opportunity that the Bill presents to shape important improvements in the way in which looked-after children are cared for and to help them get the best possible start in life. It is our duty to ensure that the Bill goes as far as possible to address the many failings that hon. Members have referred to in their contributions.
	I join the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in congratulating the other place on many of the changes already made to the Bill. Government amendments in the other place have helped to clarify the need for an in-built presumption of the promotion of stability in every child's life, with the child's family continuing to play a pivotal role wherever possible. Family remains important, not only because family relationships are some of the most important in our lives, but because last year more than 40 per cent. of looked-after children returned to live with their parents. That enduring relationship remains important, and the Government amendments in the other place recognised that more needs to be done in the Bill to spell out the important role of the family in the hierarchy of options that a child has for placement, as set out in clause 8.
	The clause also highlights the need for local authorities to ensure that placements allow children to live near home, that education is not disrupted and that a child lives with sisters or brothers, if they are also in care. Just as the Bill urges all involved in the care of looked-after children to raise their aspirations, the Government need to continue to raise their aspirations. As the Bill proceeds through Committee, we will seek the Government's support for further amendments.
	The debate in the other place led to some important amendments, and I pay tribute to the work done by my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton, whose successful amendment of the Bill in the other place has resulted in a clear and robust statutory duty on the Border and Immigration Agency to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who pass through its care by amending the Children Act 2004. A number of other Government amendments were added in response to important concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Grand Committee. Today's debate suggests a great deal of scope for the Government to go further.
	We have heard several important contributions from all parties, but none were more important than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson), who took the opportunity afforded by today's debate to make his maiden speech. I congratulate him on an outstanding maiden speech; he spoke movingly about his predecessor and her unstinting commitment to this place and to her constituents in Crewe and Nantwich. In the best spirit of maiden speeches, he brought to life the vibrant nature of his constituency, of which, as many hon. Members noted, we have first-hand experience. He brought to life its history and its potential, which I am sure will be realised through his hard work and commitment. It was most appropriate that he made his maiden speech on children in care, something of which he and his family have extensive experience. He spoke of some of the 86 children that his family fostered while he was growing up, and I am sure that his contribution has already demonstrated the value that he will bring to this place both from his family life and from his experience as a family lawyer.
	We heard an important contribution from the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), who pointed out that the Government have made a significant investment in children in care in recent years. In the other place, the noble Lord Adonis confirmed that between 2001 and 2005 £230 million was spent to support children in residential care and £330 million was spent to support children in foster care. As the right hon. Lady pointed out, despite that investment only modest improvements, which do not match the investment, have been made. For example, the proportion of children who get five or more GCSEs has improved by only 3 per cent.
	The right hon. Lady also mentioned the Government's need to focus on those most in need and her work on social exclusion. I hope that her words resonate with the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who will reply to the debate, because she is right that the Government have not taken the action that is needed to focus on children most in need. I have highlighted that, especially in the context of Sure Start, for which the Government have recognised the need to improve and increase the number of outreach workers. However, there is evidence of worrying cuts.

Hilary Armstrong: In trying to paraphrase my words, the hon. Lady needs to recognise the huge improvement that 1997 brought. She was not here, but I spent 10 years before 1997 in the House, when it was difficult to get any investment, or, indeed, much attention, for the subject of our discussion. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friends, but I also urge them to go further.

Maria Miller: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention but, as she pointed out, investment is not enough, because we need reform to ensure that the money is made to work hard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a characteristically excellent contribution, which showed his commitment to and long-standing work on the subject. I want to highlight his comments about the widening gap between looked-after children and their peers. Many hon. Members referred to those worrying statistics throughout the debate and the cost that that presents to the state if those children, left without the support they require, enter the offenders' system. Indeed, my hon. Friend pointed out that persistent offenders individually cost the state some £164,000 a year, and perhaps we need to take more account of that cost when we evaluate the importance of the measure.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made a valuable contribution and raised an issue that other hon. Members did not mention—the problems that face those who wish to adopt a child in this country and the apparently overwhelming influence of a child's ethnic background when local authorities judge parents' potential suitability. The House will listen carefully to the Under-Secretary's response to my right hon. and learned Friend's contribution, because my right hon. and learned Friend has highlighted an issue about which hon. Members of all parties are deeply concerned.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) drew attention to several problems for disabled children in long-term residential places. I am sure that that will be covered more fully in Committee.
	Two hon. Members emphasised the importance of independent advocacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) spoke with his usual thoughtfulness and eloquence about the additions that he would like to make to the Bill, and he highlighted independent advocacy as one issue that requires further examination. He stressed the unique role that independent advocates play in supporting looked-after children and their value for the more than one in four children in care who also have special educational needs. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) also raised that issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) raised, at the tail end of the debate, the important issues of accommodation for those leaving care and of respite care. She also mentioned something that clearly requires careful discussion in Committee, namely the challenges that the Bill sets local authorities. Many hon. Members have local authorities that do well in looking after the needs of children in care. My local authority in Hampshire has great experience of kinship care. I learned that that is not available in many parts of the country, but we take it for granted in my part of Hampshire. We need to ensure that local authorities can meet the challenges that the Bill creates for them.
	I want briefly to pick up on something that the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, who opened the debate, said about health inequalities. She reminded the House that half of all children in care suffer from a mental health problem. I hope that that issue will be taken up either by the Under-Secretary when he closes the debate or in further debate, because only a fraction of those 27,000 children in care aged between five and 17 who have a mental health problem have any hope of receiving the support that they need. Indeed, briefings for this debate indicate that only 10,000 of those children will receive the support that they need from mental health services.
	The Minister for Children, Young People and Families also discussed the importance of closing the inequality gap. I want to pick up on the words that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe used about the gap that concerns us all on the Conservative Benches—the gap between the words used in debates such as this and the reality that is delivered on the ground. We all want to work together to ensure that that gap closes.
	There were also contributions from the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). Unfortunately, time is short, and I cannot go into great detail about the issues that they covered, but I am sure that they will want to play a full part in Committee and the remaining stages of the Bill.
	The Opposition welcome the opportunity that the Bill presents. We will do all that we can to ensure that it is ambitious, to use the words of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, and that it does all that it can to raise our aspirations for what can be achieved for looked-after children. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said in his opening statement, we will seek to press the Government further in Committee on a number of critical areas to improve the Bill's impact on the lives of looked-after children in all our constituencies throughout the country and to emphasise the importance of strengthening family contact, because the family is the source of our closest and most meaningful relationships, which is why we want to introduce a presumption of contact between all children in care and their siblings.
	Because we know how important stability is for children, we want to reduce the bureaucratic burden for social workers, so that there is less turnover in that profession and that, as a result, children receive the continuity of care that they need. Staff turnover among social workers in London is currently 15 per cent. every year, and it is even higher in other parts of the country. That is not only a great cause of concern for the children involved, but a great waste for local authorities.
	Additionally, we want to help children who wish to stay in care until they are 18, and we want to give care leavers a nominated social worker whom they can contact for advice. Most social workers do a remarkable job in the most difficult circumstances. Their profession has undergone a great deal of scrutiny, and some would say that their reputation had been bruised in recent years. That needs to be addressed head-on. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, we want to consider the appointment of a chief social worker, who would be the public face of the profession.
	We want to ensure not only that foster carers are encouraged to enter the profession, but that they are protected from any unfounded allegations that may shake their desire to remain in it. We also want all private foster carers to be registered with their local authorities to increase confidence in foster carers throughout the country.
	This has been an important debate on how we can improve the situation for children who are looked after. We should pay tribute not only to those involved in providing the care on the ground for their tireless work, but to those national organisations whose knowledge and expertise provide us all with an invaluable insight into the work that needs to be done. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members would like to thank those organisations that spent a considerable time providing us with the briefings that we needed in order to have such a high quality debate.
	In conclusion, this debate shows that there is no difficulty in identifying the problems and no shortage of desire to raise the aspirations of those who work with looked-after children. However, over the past decade—and perhaps even before that—there has been a failure to deliver a real change for children who are looked after. We on this side of the House will work with the Government to help ensure that we make the most of this opportunity, because there is a will among all right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the Bill really makes the difference that children in care need.

Kevin Brennan: We have had a lively, high quality and mainly consensual debate this evening, which is as it should be on this subject—one that was neglected for many years, but that has had a great deal more attention recently. As we have all said this evening, it should have even more attention. The contributions to the debate have often been enriched by pertinent personal experience and expertise, which has greatly contributed to the quality of discussion.
	I think that we share a common goal across the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families set it out in the opening speech, and hon. Members have continued to express it throughout the debate. Since tributes have already been made to the other place, I would like to pay my own tribute, particularly to Lord Adonis, who did much of the heavy lifting on the Bill at the other end of this building with considerable effect, panache and a great deal of support on all sides. The common purpose that we are trying to nurture is really about the well-being of every child. We want to secure for every child in the country every possible opportunity to make the most of their talents. That is the reason why the Department for Children, Schools and Families was created—to ensure that every child has every chance of success.
	A successful future depends not just on exam results, as it begins at birth and it is nurtured in the home. It is fostered from support, stability and significant adults who care about children, keep them safe and encourage their progress. That is what the Bill and the broader reforms of our "Care Matters" agenda are intended to secure for every child, not just the fortunate few. We want to try to make our care system truly world class, so that those children and young people who, for whatever reason, are unable to live with their birth parents receive a level of care akin to that which any good parent would provide. It is the job of every professional within that system to support the well-being and development of children and young people as far as they can, not just as far as it applies to their job title. That applies not just to our care system, but right across children's services.
	In fact, everybody is part of team Every Child Matters. This legislation is a core element of our "Care Matters" agenda, which will support high-quality professionals providing a high standard of service in a world-class system. The aim is to provide children and young people in the care system with those fundamentals that my right hon. Friend the Minister talked about earlier: good-quality parenting, raising aspirations for young people in care, and giving those young people a real voice and, most crucially, stability in their young lives. I am pleased that hon. Members across the House have welcomed many aspects of the Bill in support of those aims: securing local, stable placements as a priority; the centrality of the voice of the child in everything we do; improving care planning; and better support to help young people make the transition into adult life.
	Members have raised other specific issues during the course of debate, and I will try in the time available to do some justice to them, even if I cannot do full justice to all. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) told us about some of the amendments he intends to introduce as the Bill progresses, so we look forward to seeing them. He mentioned a welfare checklist. Of course, section 22 of the Children Act 1989 already sets a framework for local authority decision making. It makes it clear that local authorities have a duty to "safeguard and promote" the child's welfare; that the local authority must discharge this duty having particular regard to the need to promote the child's educational achievement; and that the local authority must consult the child and give due consideration to their "wishes and feelings" before taking decisions that affect them, and give due consideration to
	"the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and religious background".
	That is almost entirely analogous in content to the welfare checklist.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also mentioned the proposal to establish a chief social worker. Our approach, set out in the children's plan, which was published last December and was reinforced in "Building Brighter Futures", is wide-ranging and systematic in seeking to accelerate change across the whole of the children's work force. Our ambition for that work force cannot be achieved by central Government or any single partner alone. Furthermore, there is already a work-force infrastructure in place that carries out many of the functions suggested by the report, including the General Social Care Council, the Children's Workforce Development Council and the Social Care Institute for Excellence. Nevertheless, we look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
	I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman got into the business about adoption targets. I did not realise that he was rowing in that particular river. The only adoption targets, which ended in 2006 and which he will remember had their genesis in the Adoption and Children Act 2002—we both served on the Bill Committee—were on the number already in care and waiting to be placed for adoption, and on speeding up the process. Those targets reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care who found a permanent home through adoption. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), whose remarks I shall come to in a moment, referred to that aim tonight and supported it strongly when we considered that Bill.

John Hemming: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I will not give way, although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman had only three minutes in which to speak. Oh, go on then.

John Hemming: The Minister is saying that best value 163 was scrapped at the end of 2005-06. Does he not agree that, in fact, it was still extant for 2007-08 and has been scrapped only since then?

Kevin Brennan: As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, there were no financial targets attached to the national adoption targets that we are talking about. Neither is there any evidence whatever that supports the contention that he has made on a number of occasions, which is that younger children becoming adopted is somehow linked to reward payments of some sort; there is absolutely no evidence whatever.
	I can remind the House of what Mr. Justice Wall said recently about the hon. Gentleman's campaign on some of those matters:
	"My judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged... I find it not only unacceptable but shocking that a man in Mr. Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation"
	about that particular case
	"without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position."
	I advise the hon. Gentleman to provide evidence.

John Hemming: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I am not getting into a personal dialogue with the hon. Gentleman because I need to refer to other hon. Members.
	If I may, I shall move on to talk about some of the other contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong) has great expertise in this area and she showed that this evening. She acknowledged what the Government have done so far and she played a large part in it, particularly in relation to some early intervention projects, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned, although he neglected to mention that many of them were introduced on the Government's initiative and with Government support centrally.
	My right hon. Friend also encouraged me to be ambitious about pilots in relation to social pedagogy. I can tell her that we share very strongly her interest in and commitment to social pedagogy, and we will shortly announce the successful tenders for developing social pedagogy pilots in children's homes in England. More than £1 million is being allocated for those pilots.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made a number of comments in her usual thoughtful way. In particular, she referred to the issue of private fostering. The strengthened notification scheme introduced by the Children Act 2004 has had only two years of operation, so we contend that it has not operated long enough for us to assess it properly. It was also mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
	We are not at this stage convinced that a registration scheme would offer safeguards in a way that notification cannot. We believe, as does the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, which works extensively on private fostering arrangements, that we should seek to ensure that the current arrangements are operated effectively and evaluate them more fully before introducing a new registration scheme. I am sure that we will discuss that topic further in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole also raised the issue of variations of rates in care, which I am sure we can also discuss in further detail in Committee. Furthermore, she mentioned the UK Border Agency and the Lords amendment. We have certainly heard the points made by Members of the House and by peers in the other place in relation to that amendment. In the light of that, we will consider our response. I am sure that that is another matter that we shall discuss in Committee.
	Like other hon. Members, the hon. Lady also raised points about advocacy, which I am sure we will debate in great detail in Committee. She quoted a little selectively from the Select Committee report, on the point that care needed to be taken with the pilots. I do not know why she omitted the previous sentence in the report:
	"We welcome the provision in the Bill on piloting social work practices."
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson) graced us with his maiden speech, and paid tribute with great eloquence, and I am sure sincerity, to his predecessor. In my ministerial capacity, I received a letter from my late hon. Friend two days after she passed away, which started: "Dear Kevin, Thank you for your response to my recent letter"—I will not mention the subject—"it is totally useless." That sums her up. The hon. Gentleman also told us with great sincerity about his personal associations with children in care, and spoke effectively and passionately about the recruitment of social workers. I am sure that he will make a great contribution to the House.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for her usual passionate support of advocacy. She will make her voice heard throughout the rest of proceedings on the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) spoke about an issue that is not in the Bill, namely smacking, although she will probably tell me off for calling it that. We changed the law on the matter in 2004, and I must emphasise that in the review from she quoted, the majority of parents did not support a ban on smacking. In the absence of evidence that the law was not working, the Government decided that there was no case to change the law.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised an individual case, which has been highlighted in the media, in relation to adoption. Obviously, I cannot comment on the individual circumstances of the case, although I have read those media reports. All I can say is that local authorities, under the law and under the guidance, must find a placement that meets the needs of the child. A child should not be denied the opportunity of a loving family only on the basis of the ethnic background of prospective adopters. The Government's policy is quite clear: it was set out originally in 1998 in the local authority circular, "Achieving the Right Balance". It has not changed—the matter was debated under the 2002 Act—and local authorities should comply with that. I cannot emphasise that too strongly.
	As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) spoke with great eloquence and passion on these subjects. It was a great pleasure to be at No. 10 Downing street with her earlier today to launch the action plan for runaway children. With parliamentary colleagues across the House, she has played a huge part in pressing the Government to take action. I congratulate her on that. She spoke movingly of the need to make sure that the transition out of care is properly managed. I spoke to the Fostering Network lobby today on some of the issues raised in her speech, and particularly about the "staying put" pilots, which will enable people in the 10 areas I mentioned today to stay on until at least the age of 21. We will debate in further detail in Committee the reasons why at this stage we need to collect the evidence to get that policy right.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) who, as ever, contributed with great eloquence to our debate and raised a number of extremely important issues, with which I do not have time to deal in great detail now. Suffice it to say that we will take on board his point about secondary legislation, but we will need to consult on the regulations.
	On that basis, given the short time available to me, I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time .

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursu ant to Standing Order No. 83A(7)  (Programme motions),
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 3rd July 2008.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.— [Mr. Khan. ]
	 Question agreed to.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [ LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pu rsuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)  (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Young Persons Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.— [ Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Students Responsible for Children or Young Persons) Amendment Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Post Office Card Account

Bob Spink: It is indeed remarkable that on this day, when I am due to present a petition asking for support for my local post offices, I should receive confirmation that the Government, under pressure from European Union regulations, propose to close yet another two post offices in my constituency. This is not a party-political argument, but a defence of facilities that are much needed for vulnerable groups, for the viability of our high streets and for the fabric of our communities. Again, Europe is the villain of the piece.
	The petition states:
	The petition of the residents of Castle Point and others,
	Sheweth,
	That the Post Office Card Account is important to community cohesion, that the Post Offices in Castle Point provide a vital service to the local community, but that their future is threatened by uncertainty over the continuation of Her Majesty's Government's support for Post Offices and, in particular, the abolition of the Post Office Card Account in 2010, which would be totally unacceptable to the residents of Castle Point, especially vulnerable groups who rely on Post Offices and the viability of our important high street shopping parades.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review its policy to abolish the Post Office Card Account in 2010.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	[P000213]

POST OFFICE CLOSURES (BIRMINGHAM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss post office closures with the Minister. I have a strange feeling that this is not the first debate on the subject to which he has responded, either on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.
	Most Members and their constituents, especially in Birmingham, know that few issues arouse the emotions as much as post office closures. I know from my own experience that the implementation of the urban network reinvention programme some years ago was very badly handled. Post office closure programmes have serious implications for our neighbourhoods, not just commercially but socially. When we lose our local post offices it is about far more than services; it is about the local economy, about the viability of our neighbourhoods, and about shopping areas. For example, the Curdale Road post office in Bartley Green in my constituency plays an incredibly important social role.
	According to recent research undertaken by Help the Aged, 59 per cent. of older people considered local post offices to be essential to their way of life and 61 per cent. of customers in deprived urban areas used their local post offices to access community services, while 36 per cent. went to the post office to meet their friends. Between 2001 and 2005, the proportion of elderly people who used their post offices increased. However, although it is clear that the local post office is part of the community, I accept the need for change. I am not trying to defend the status quo; it is a question of how we can make changes in a sustainable fashion.
	It is in the nature of the way the House organises its debates that this one is taking place at a rather peculiar time. On 24 June, we in the west midlands will be officially told which of our post offices are to be closed. There will be a six-week consultation period. If I understand the network change programme correctly, it is not a question of the number of branches in a particular geographical region that Post Office Ltd wishes to close, but a question of which branches it intends to close.
	A Member arguing against the closure of a particular post office might well be asked "If we do not close this one, which one would you like us to close?" I—and, I imagine, other Birmingham Members—would like to present some guidelines on where closures seem to us to be appropriate. There were tremendous flaws in the previous approach to reinvigorating the programme. These flaws had long-term negative impacts in my constituency and others.
	In 1999, there were 18 post offices in my Edgbaston constituency. Since then, seven of them have closed. I accept that some of the closures were due to the choice of the sub-postmaster, but others were simply decided by the network reinvention programme. Let me offer two local examples. The closure of the post office on Princes corner was due to the fact that no one could be found to take it over. However, the Moor Pool estate example is different. There was a small row of shops, of which the post office and local shop provided the key anchor point. As soon as the post office was closed, the local shop became unviable and so did the other shops. To add insult to injury, the Post Office told us that people could always go to Bearwood, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), but a few months later it closed that. People were then told to go to Harborne high street, where services were not expanded and we had queues going out on to the pavement. In terms of the current process, if we assume that people should go to nearby post offices, I hope that the additional work load and greater flow of consumers created is looked at, so that the remaining post offices can cope with the extra pressure.

Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing tonight's debate. May I add to the point she makes about such post offices being able to cope? One of the problems with the access criteria laid down by Post Office Ltd is that they simply measure the distance of customers from post offices, not the density of population or the fact that unsustainable queues in post offices can easily develop. That should certainly be taken into account in densely populated areas such as Birmingham.

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for that point, as it takes me on to another issue of relevance in areas such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, which have communities with a disproportionate element of elderly people. While it might look fine on paper to say that 99 per cent. of the population are within 1 mile of a post office, for the elderly and those in residential care homes 1 mile might in fact be quite a long way. Therefore, we need to co-ordinate the programme properly in order to deal with neighbourhoods' specific needs. There are social, as well as economic, implications.
	I wish to make it very clear that I am not advocating no change. It is very easy for Opposition parties to accuse the Government of recklessly closing post offices; they have done so over the past few years, especially during election campaigns.

Richard Burden: There are no Opposition Members present now, though.

Gisela Stuart: No, none. It is interesting that the Opposition Benches are completely empty for this debate. Opposition parties' election leaflets can be quite seductive, but they have never offered any alternative.

Lynne Jones: In my constituency, during the local election campaign the Tory candidate suggested that two post offices would close, which caused extreme anxiety in the community, unnecessarily as it turned out as both post offices are doing well, A postmaster whom I spoke to last week is very angry that a picture of his post office was placed in Opposition literature along with a suggestion that it was under threat, when there was no reason for that.

Gisela Stuart: My hon. Friend represents a neighbouring constituency, and she is right to say that it is most distressing when something as serious as post office reorganisation, which is necessary, is used as a political football, which it has been in this case. It is very easy to produce election leaflets and raise fears, but we are here to make responsible decisions, and we know that the role of post offices has changed. As MPs, we know that the way people communicate has changed. People use e-mails and the internet much more, but there is also a wider availability of bank accounts. That is why it is a reality that the post office network has lost some 4 million customers recently, and it is incurring losses of some £3.5 million a week. That is serious money, and as a responsible Government we have to deal with that.
	Even the National Federation of SubPostmasters, as I understand it, accepts that we need to make changes, but they have to be made in a sustainable way. Some people might want to argue that the Government and Post Office Ltd could have been more creative in looking at how new business could be created, be it foreign currency, travel and car insurance, broadband and so on. However, in the light of the re-bidding for the network in 2011, the key thing is how we maintain a network that is sufficiently sustainable for a population such as Birmingham's and that has the key post offices in place, so that all members of the community who wish to use a post office can do so.
	This Government do not have to be ashamed of their record. Before 1997, post offices were not supported or subsidised at all. Since then, we have invested some £2 billion in the network, and I understand that in the run-up to 2011 there will be another £1.7 billion. This is an annual subsidy of £150 million, so the notion that this is reckless free-marketeering does not stick—we are aware of the social responsibility. However, I am much more concerned that when we come to the re-tendering of the post office card account contract, the structure of the Post Office is such that it is in a state fit to tender for that contract and to supply the best services for our communities. Unless that happens, the 99 per cent. of the population whom we want to be within 1 mile of accessing a post office will not be able to do so. If the Post Office itself does not realise that it has a significant responsibility—if the decisions that it takes in the next few weeks are not responsible ones—it will reorganise itself into oblivion. I do not want that to happen.
	When the announcement is made on 24 June, after which all our constituents will have a six-week period in which to respond to the proposals, the people concerned should look at the situation responsibly. They should look at whether the remaining post offices are in the right places—where post offices are due for closure, the post boxes and access for people to post their letters should be maintained—and they should look closely at what the alternatives are. I hope that the Post Office accepts that when it suggests that people go to nearby post offices, it needs to look at the capacity and in some cases actually increase it.
	It is in all our interests that a network that has a commercial but also a social benefit is sustainable, that we can maintain it and that it is economically viable, and that the Post Office learns from the mistakes that it made in the first round of the review. Our constituents, depending on how they feel on hearing the announcement, should use that six-week period to make their representations, so that MPs across the south of Birmingham collectively—my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) are here, but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), who is not, is also very concerned about this issue—can take a responsible view and ensure that our constituents' interests are reflected, and that there is a long-term, sustainable post office network that will help all of us in the 21st century.

Patrick McFadden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate. She is a very strong and effective campaigner for her constituents; indeed, her constituency is not too far from my own, so I know that she works very hard for the people of Birmingham, Edgbaston. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for their interventions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston is right to say that this is by no means the first time that the House has debated this issue. I understand that it is of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House and that it is a difficult issue. This debate is slightly unusual in that normally when hon. Members discuss the issue, they wish to highlight one or two post offices in a particular area plan, but, as she said, the area plan for Birmingham, Coventry and Warwickshire has not yet been published, so we cannot talk about particular post offices in that area. I understand that the plan will be published on 24 June.
	As a Minister, I do not have a role to play in selecting which post office may stay open or which post office will close as a result of the programme. That is rightly a matter for Post Office Ltd, and the process involves Postwatch, which is the consumer voice in all this, as well as MPs and other local representatives. I may say some more about the role of MPs in a moment or two.
	This difficult process is driven by three big changes taking place in society, the first of which is a change in lifestyle. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the post offices in her constituency often being used, particularly by elderly people, but I am also aware that post offices are not used by most pensioners to pick up their pension, for example. Eight out of 10 pensioners have their pension paid directly into a bank account—among new retirees the figure is nine out of 10, and it is likely to grow. A lifestyle change in how we receive money and how we do things is part of this process.
	Technology changes are also taking place. A service such as car tax online did not even exist a few years ago—it was not even available. At the beginning of last year, that service was used by about 500,000 people a month and it is now used by about 1 million people a month. Its use has grown that much in just a year, and it means 1 million people a month no longer go to the post office to renew their car tax.
	The third change is competition. Other networks now bid for work that was traditionally done by the Post Office. For example, the BBC, not the Government, made a decision, as it is free to do, to give the TV licence contract to an alternative network. Hon. Members may have their views about that decision, and I am not criticising it. I am saying that it illustrates the fact that other networks are competing for business traditionally done by the Post Office.
	It is easy to say that the Government should just stop those changes, but the truth is that society is taking part in those changes; it is changing how it does business, and that is having an impact on our post office network.

Lynne Jones: But what role do the Government have in deciding the future of the Post Office card account, which pays out £27 billion a year? I understand from postmasters and postmistresses that they feel that if the Post Office is not awarded that contract, a further 3,000 post offices will have to close. That decision is in the hands of the Government.

Patrick McFadden: I understand that the Post Office card account is very important to our post offices. I recently spoke at the annual conference of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, where that point was made very strongly. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not say too much about that matter tonight, because, legally speaking, the process has to be done by competitive tender and it is out to competitive tender at the moment. The Government are committed to a successor product to the Post Office card account, and the decision on that will be made later this year by my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I certainly understand its importance; but given that the process must be done properly by competitive tender, I hope that the House will understand why I do not say too much about who should win. The decision must be taken on a proper basis.
	I was talking about the changes in society that affect the Post Office, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston referred to them, too. All that—the lifestyle, the technology and the competition—adds up to a situation in which our post office network is sadly losing £500,000 on every day that it is open for business and has lost some 4 million customers per week. That lost of custom and business is why the National Federation of SubPostmasters has recognised the need for some post offices to close. Its general secretary said at the start of the programme:
	"Although regrettable, we believe that closures are necessary to ensure the remaining post offices are able to thrive in the future".
	The federation recognises that, although this is difficult, it is necessary.
	Recognition of the need to reduce the size of the network does not stop with the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Hon. Members may be surprised to note that that view is also shared by the Conservative spokesman who said that
	"we have to face the facts about the future of postal services in this country... we fully expect the network to shrink in size."—[ Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 947.]
	We do not often hear that quote repeated locally, but I hope that, if political capital is made of the situation in constituencies in Birmingham, perhaps my hon. Friends might remind their constituents of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman's expectation that the network would shrink in size.
	I understand that no one likes their post office to close, even though many people do not use their post offices as often as they used to. The Government's response to the challenges that I have talked about has not been to walk away and to say that this is a purely commercial network and that no social role is involved. We absolutely recognise the social and community role in having a strong post office network. That is why we have put so much public support into the Post Office.
	My hon. Friend mentioned some of the figures. She is absolutely right. At the moment, some £1.7 billion is going into the post office network. That is on top of £2 billion, which went in before the current programme of support. Without that support, many more thousands of post offices would be under threat, over and above those that sadly have to close. So we absolutely recognise the social and community role of post offices.

Lynne Jones: I am very pleased to learn that, but will the money that the Government are putting in be taken into account when the DWP decides on the results of the tender for the Post Office card account? Surely, we must take that into account. It is not purely a commercial consideration if the Government have to support post offices and then take a commercial decision with another Department. It is all Government money.

Patrick McFadden: I am sure that the DWP will have heard the point that my hon. Friend makes. Even after the current round of closures has finished, we will still have a post office network that is three times larger than the top five supermarket chains put together, that is hugely larger than all the banks put together and that still has an unparalleled reach in both urban and rural parts of the country.
	In the few minutes that I have left, I want to turn to some of the specifics that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston raised about how the consultation works. She is right to say that the consultation is about the how rather than the whether. The letter to MPs sent last July from Post Office Ltd said that the consultation
	"would not concern the principle of the need for change...nor its broad extent and distribution—that has already been established by the Government in its Response Document issued last May. Rather consultation will be seeking representations on the most effective way in which Government policy...can be best implemented in the particular Area in question."
	The Select Committee has also called on the Post Office to make it clearer that the consultation is not a referendum on whether people want to see closures, but is about how we will do this in certain local areas.

Gisela Stuart: Am I right to assume that the Government have a view that about 11,500 post offices will be needed for the country whereas the Post Office is not quite committed to that ultimate number?

Patrick McFadden: I would not quite put it like that. The Government have made funding available for a network of about 11,500. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the fact that, on a strict numerical basis, the access criteria set down by the Government would require fewer post offices than that, but the Government have funded well above the minimum needed to meet the access criteria. Not only that, but we have guaranteed that funding until 2011. We have provided financial stability for a network of about 11,500 post offices.
	I was talking about the consultation process. My hon. Friend raised the different characteristics of several post offices in her constituency. Next week, when the details of the plan covering Birmingham are made public, if my hon. Friends or other MPs in Birmingham, Coventry or Warwickshire want to make representations, they should do so through Postwatch, which is the consumer voice. Postwatch has the capacity to ask the Post Office to review a particular closure, but only if the criteria are breached. That process starts locally and can ultimately go right up to Allan Leighton, who is the chairman of Royal Mail Group and can make the final decision on a particular local branch. A mechanism is built into the system to review the cases of particular branches if the Post Office has got it wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned the access criteria. They are designed to ensure reasonable coverage in both urban and rural areas. The £1.7 billion to which I have referred a couple of times is not just the annual subsidy for running thousands of post offices that would otherwise be under threat, but includes some funding to deal with the queuing issues that have been raised and to ensure that the migration, as they call it, of business from one office to neighbouring offices can be handled. I understand that it is not merely a numbers game about the number of offices—it is also about the quality of service and that is important.

Richard Burden: When my hon. Friend says that, will he take into account the experience of a number of sub-postmasters? Although funding is theoretically available, accessing it is sometimes quite difficult for small sub-postmasters who operate on fairly narrow margins. That might be an area where we might need to have further discussions with Post Office Ltd.

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I hope that he recognises that up to £1.7 billion is a significant level of support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is more support than was given by the previous Government, who provided no subsidy at all. I understand that the process is difficult, and that hon. Members will rightly want to make representations about it. I see no contradiction between accepting the overall need for change and making representations about particular post offices.

Lynne Jones: rose—

Patrick McFadden: I am afraid that I do not think that I have time to give way again.
	In future, the Government will continue to play our role by providing the subsidy that I have set out. However, the Post Office must play its role by continuing to innovate in new business areas such as foreign currency, insurance and broadband. There is no future in turning the clock back, but there is a future for a healthy, thriving post office network.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.